12 ms·

Nothing says "British far right" like a Cabinet full of ethnic minorities.

scott_w 4y ago
Our Home Secretary has just instituted an illegal policy of deporting African and Asian refugees to Rwanda. Irrespective of the colour of her skin, her actions are those of the far right.
- dankboys 4y ago
  The...legal policy?
  - scott_w 4y ago
    The policy so legal, everyone is now pulled from the flight and it was cancelled after a challenge to the ECHR.
- robin_reala 4y ago
  I thouroughly disagree with the practice and it’s morally repugnant, but hasn’t it just been court-tested and declared legal? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/10/uk-deportation-flight-rwanda-can-go-ahead-high-court-judge-rules https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/10/uk-deportati...
  - scott_w 4y ago
    No, it hasn’t. The court ruled that there’s nothing in U.K. law that bars specific flights but they didn’t rule on the legality of the policy itself. This will be challenged at the court of appeal and will, eventually, be found a breach of international law.
    - 88 4y ago
      So it’s illegal in your opinion but not in actual fact?
      - scott_w 4y ago
        It’s normal for the high court to side with the government in these cases only for them to be overturned on appeal. That’s not my opinion, that’s the experience of immigration lawyers. So yes, the policy is unlawful _in fact_ but the legal process needs to catch up to that.
        88 4y ago
        Except the Supreme Court have said they will not consider an appeal. So it is not illegal.
        scott_w 4y ago
        They’re not ruling on legality, they’re refusing to grant injunctions on the flights. This doesn’t mean they’re legal, it means the courts won’t stop those individuals from being deported while the legal case for the policy is being argued. The decision to grant, or not, an injunction is not in itself a judgement on the underlying policy. The court did the former, not the latter.
        camjw 4y ago
        What would it take to convince you that this policy is not illegal? (For clarity, I agree with you that it is an awful policy.)
        scott_w 4y ago
        Very simply the Supreme Court would have to rule that the policy was legal and detail how it was in line with UN conventions on refugees. The English courts haven’t done this yet, they just said they won’t issue injunctions to prevent certain deportations.
- mantas 4y ago
  Since when is dealing with illegal migration under coverage of refugees „far right“?
  - scott_w 4y ago
    When it’s refugees legally seeking help? This policy has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mantas 4y ago
      Because nowadays vast majoritie of „refugees“ are not refugees in a classic sense. E.g. my country had thousands of „refugees“ hoping over border from Belarus last year. Last time I saw statistics, not even 1% was eligible for „refugee“ status. Even skipping the part that, according to international law, refugee is legit for the first safe country.
      - scott_w 4y ago
        That last sentence is completely incorrect and is enough for me to safely disregard everything else you just said on the basis you don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
        mantas 4y ago
        Even if some people try to challenge it and enable refugee shopping, calling it „incorrect“ shows that you don't know much about this topic.
        scott_w 4y ago
        It’s easy to prove me wrong: point me to the relevant lines in the relevant treaties or conventions that state this. You can’t because they don’t exist. There is no obligation to seek asylum in the “first safe country.” This is a common trope trotted out by right-wing mouthpieces which is where I’m assuming you got the rest of your “facts.”
- forgingahead 4y ago
  "Illegal"? There is no right to settlement of anyone in any sovereign country of which they have no citizenship in. It's entirely dependent on the laws of that sovereign country, and those laws are (usually) in place because of the preferences of the voting constituents, ie, actual citizens of the sovereign nation. You are throwing around "far right" as a slur in this discussion and that doesn't address facts or the truth of the matter.
  - scott_w 4y ago
    The policy addresses refugees which are covered under a number of UN conventions. Deporting them is illegal. I’ve already explained why it’s far right policy but let me explain in simpler words: Only black and brown people are sent to Rwanda under this scheme. White Ukrainians are not. That’s why it’s a far right scheme. One might even call it racist.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Her views on immigration are indistinguishable from those of most people in India or Bangladesh. They’d do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. And those are definitely not “far right” countries.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    There's plenty who think India has drifted to the far-right in the past decade.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      What’s happening in India is merely the westernized elite losing their grip on culture: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial-india/ https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial.... But the desire of Indians to have their country without other people in it goes back to independence from Britain. Calling it “nativism” would be inappropriate because that would make it seem like a thing that needs a label. To the contrary, that’s just how most societies are. What we need a label for are the small minority of folks who feel the opposite way.
      - triceratops 4y ago
        > What’s happening in India is merely the westernized elite losing their grip on culture It can be both simultaneously. > the desire of Indians to have their country without other people in it It's a bit more than that though. I don't think you know enough, sorry.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Feel free to educate me. I’m from neighboring Bangladesh, and the situation with pluralism in India seems like the situation with secularism in Bangladesh. Western educated elites trying to impose it on a larger population that doesn’t want it. Or at least has a vastly narrower conception of it than the elites do. At the end of the day, Bangladesh exists because Bangladeshis wanted a country for Bangali Muslims. Most Bangladeshis subscribe to that core premise. So it’s bizarre to me when people attack Britons upset about immigration from Bangladesh using accusations of “racism.” The Brexiter and the average Bangladeshi are ideologically on the same ground. Their differences arise due to conflicting interests, not conflicting ideologies.

Our Home Secretary has just instituted an illegal policy of deporting African and Asian refugees to Rwanda. Irrespective of the colour of her skin, her actions are those of the far right.

dankboys 4y ago
The...legal policy?
- scott_w 4y ago
  The policy so legal, everyone is now pulled from the flight and it was cancelled after a challenge to the ECHR.
robin_reala 4y ago
I thouroughly disagree with the practice and it’s morally repugnant, but hasn’t it just been court-tested and declared legal? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/10/uk-deportation-flight-rwanda-can-go-ahead-high-court-judge-rules https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/10/uk-deportati...
- scott_w 4y ago
  No, it hasn’t. The court ruled that there’s nothing in U.K. law that bars specific flights but they didn’t rule on the legality of the policy itself. This will be challenged at the court of appeal and will, eventually, be found a breach of international law.
  - 88 4y ago
    So it’s illegal in your opinion but not in actual fact?
    - scott_w 4y ago
      It’s normal for the high court to side with the government in these cases only for them to be overturned on appeal. That’s not my opinion, that’s the experience of immigration lawyers. So yes, the policy is unlawful _in fact_ but the legal process needs to catch up to that.
      - 88 4y ago
        Except the Supreme Court have said they will not consider an appeal. So it is not illegal.
        scott_w 4y ago
        They’re not ruling on legality, they’re refusing to grant injunctions on the flights. This doesn’t mean they’re legal, it means the courts won’t stop those individuals from being deported while the legal case for the policy is being argued. The decision to grant, or not, an injunction is not in itself a judgement on the underlying policy. The court did the former, not the latter.
        camjw 4y ago
        What would it take to convince you that this policy is not illegal? (For clarity, I agree with you that it is an awful policy.)
        scott_w 4y ago
        Very simply the Supreme Court would have to rule that the policy was legal and detail how it was in line with UN conventions on refugees. The English courts haven’t done this yet, they just said they won’t issue injunctions to prevent certain deportations.
mantas 4y ago
Since when is dealing with illegal migration under coverage of refugees „far right“?
- scott_w 4y ago
  When it’s refugees legally seeking help? This policy has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mantas 4y ago
    Because nowadays vast majoritie of „refugees“ are not refugees in a classic sense. E.g. my country had thousands of „refugees“ hoping over border from Belarus last year. Last time I saw statistics, not even 1% was eligible for „refugee“ status. Even skipping the part that, according to international law, refugee is legit for the first safe country.
    - scott_w 4y ago
      That last sentence is completely incorrect and is enough for me to safely disregard everything else you just said on the basis you don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
      - mantas 4y ago
        Even if some people try to challenge it and enable refugee shopping, calling it „incorrect“ shows that you don't know much about this topic.
        scott_w 4y ago
        It’s easy to prove me wrong: point me to the relevant lines in the relevant treaties or conventions that state this. You can’t because they don’t exist. There is no obligation to seek asylum in the “first safe country.” This is a common trope trotted out by right-wing mouthpieces which is where I’m assuming you got the rest of your “facts.”
forgingahead 4y ago
"Illegal"? There is no right to settlement of anyone in any sovereign country of which they have no citizenship in. It's entirely dependent on the laws of that sovereign country, and those laws are (usually) in place because of the preferences of the voting constituents, ie, actual citizens of the sovereign nation. You are throwing around "far right" as a slur in this discussion and that doesn't address facts or the truth of the matter.
- scott_w 4y ago
  The policy addresses refugees which are covered under a number of UN conventions. Deporting them is illegal. I’ve already explained why it’s far right policy but let me explain in simpler words: Only black and brown people are sent to Rwanda under this scheme. White Ukrainians are not. That’s why it’s a far right scheme. One might even call it racist.
rayiner 4y ago
Her views on immigration are indistinguishable from those of most people in India or Bangladesh. They’d do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. And those are definitely not “far right” countries.
- triceratops 4y ago
  There's plenty who think India has drifted to the far-right in the past decade.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    What’s happening in India is merely the westernized elite losing their grip on culture: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial-india/ https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial.... But the desire of Indians to have their country without other people in it goes back to independence from Britain. Calling it “nativism” would be inappropriate because that would make it seem like a thing that needs a label. To the contrary, that’s just how most societies are. What we need a label for are the small minority of folks who feel the opposite way.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      > What’s happening in India is merely the westernized elite losing their grip on culture It can be both simultaneously. > the desire of Indians to have their country without other people in it It's a bit more than that though. I don't think you know enough, sorry.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        Feel free to educate me. I’m from neighboring Bangladesh, and the situation with pluralism in India seems like the situation with secularism in Bangladesh. Western educated elites trying to impose it on a larger population that doesn’t want it. Or at least has a vastly narrower conception of it than the elites do. At the end of the day, Bangladesh exists because Bangladeshis wanted a country for Bangali Muslims. Most Bangladeshis subscribe to that core premise. So it’s bizarre to me when people attack Britons upset about immigration from Bangladesh using accusations of “racism.” The Brexiter and the average Bangladeshi are ideologically on the same ground. Their differences arise due to conflicting interests, not conflicting ideologies.