5 ms·

Excuse me, but literally today is the first day that the government starting flying asylum seekers to Rwanda[1], and yesterday they published legislation with t

Excuse me, but literally today is the first day that the government starting flying asylum seekers to Rwanda[1], and yesterday they published legislation with the intention of breaking international law[2]. They've also recently curtailed rights to legal protest[3]. The Prime Minister has a history of law breaking including illegally shutting down our parliament[4]. This government only got their majority when UKIP candidates stood down in favour of the Tory party at the last election. By any reasonable definition England is currently governed by the far right. [1]:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61791994 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61791994 [2]:https://news.sky.com/story/a-mess-unrealistic-doctrine-of-necessity-three-views-on-northern-ireland-protocol-divisions-12633349 https://news.sky.com/story/a-mess-unrealistic-doctrine-of-ne... [3]:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56400751 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56400751 [4]:https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/uk/scottish-court-uk-parliament-prorogation-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/uk/scottish-court-uk-parliame...

mantas 4y ago
Denmark's left-wing government is planning to send away asylum seekers too. It's interesting times when protecting borders from illegal immigration is seen as „far right“. It's not „far right“ rising, it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwanda-transfer-asylum-seekers-2022-04-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwan...
- cjrp 4y ago
  > protecting borders from illegal immigration Asylum-seeking is not illegal immigration.
  - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
    right, and they're going back once the situation in their home country stabilizes, correct?
  - curiousgal 4y ago
    What happens when/if their asylum application gets denied though? At least in France they don't get forced to leave and they find themselves in a strange grey area.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    They can seek asylum in or from Rwanda then, right? I mean, it’s not like they are trying to immigrate to UK, they are just running for their lives, so safety in Rwanda should be good enough, no?
  - Ntrails 4y ago
    > Asylum-seeking is not illegal immigration Economic migration under the guise of asylum seeking is though. And pretending that all the people who make the attempt to gain Asylum in the UK are legitimate non-economic migrants is absurd.
    - cjrp 4y ago
      > Economic migration under the guise of asylum seeking is though. Correct. As is murder, theft, etc. I don't think anything in my comment suggested they're not?
- gambiting 4y ago
  I don't think even the most fundamental left leaning people are against sending illegal immigrants away - the problem is that UK is choosing to send people away to Rwanda, basically telling them that it's a safe African country, good luck there. Ministers have confirmed that yeah, it's "possible" that for instance Ukrainian refugees could be sent there if they didn't follow the right procedures and are deemed "illegal". I can only imagine that if not for horrible optics, UK would send them to Australia. But oh well, I guess if your dream is to resurrect the British Empire, having a foreign penal colony is one of the requirements.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    The UK can't send asylum seekers to Australia because Australia is a sovereign entity and wouldn't accept them. Indeed Australia already has anti-asylum policies locally, and these influenced the model for the UK's decision.
    - gambiting 4y ago
      Well of course, it was a tongue in cheek comment - that UK would probably send people to Australia, just like it used to. I'm not saying that it's possible, realistic, or even a good idea in the first place.
  - true_religion 4y ago
    What’s wrong with Rwanda? From the point of view of Africans, we see this as a Rwanda led initiative to take care of refugees in a country that is safe, and in an environment that is closer to their homelands. Although in the past Rwanda has had is troubles but … so did Ireland and the UK on different scale. Rwanda of today is a different place, and the current president has long experience in handling refugee situations and defusing the natural tensions of people in a refugee crises. Is it absolutely necessary for refugees to leave to go to a different continent, to live on an island where they will forever look like an “other” and have a culture and weather that is totally alien to them? There should be more to this equation than the thought of sending people to the most prosperous country that they can.
- throwaway0191 4y ago
  [flagged]
- andybak 4y ago
  > it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left. Everyone that learns about the Overton window is immediately convinced the other side has been pulling it in their direction for years.
  - mantas 4y ago
    Are you trying to say that migration laws and practices and coverage in mass media didn't drift in certain direction compared to 20/40/60 years ago?
    - andybak 4y ago
      20? Probably not hugely. 40? Maybe in some aspects of policy. 60? Probably. But you're talking about Denmark and I know nothing about Danish domestic policies - which is why I was intentionally broad in my wording. The Overton window is poorly named. It's an irregularly shaped blob rather than a rectangular frame. Some things can move in different directions at different times.
- jasonlotito 4y ago
temp8964 4y ago
What’s your reasonable definition of far-right?
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  There's a saying about the UK's far right parties (the likes of UKIP, National Front (1) etc) that in the long run it's not a winning proposition, as the Tories can always adopt the same rhetoric, and they always have better suits. This has indeed happened. 1) https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks-claims-tory-party-is-quite-literally-the-national-front-212309/ https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks...
  - gadders 4y ago
    UKIP is not far-right. You can't just label anyone you disagree with as "Far Right". You have to base your argument on facts.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      You can't just label someone as "not Far Right", just because you agree with them. That's denial.
      - gadders 4y ago
        I would say the onus of proof would be on the accuser.
- barneygale 4y ago
  Immigration enforcement raids against mostly black/brown people. Putting them on flights to countries they left as infants. Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for "processing". Sending British citizens to the Carribean because we were too disorganised to issue them passports in the 50s. The Tory party has absorbed the UKIP/EDL/etc vote. It rules by populism alone at this stage.
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> I’d say post-Brexit England has drifted away from the far right. > By any reasonable definition England is currently governed by the far right. These can both be true, IMHO you're talking about different things - 1) the position of the electorate and 2) the position of the government. And the growing gap between them.
simonh 4y ago
In the year to March around 3/4 of people seeking asylum in the UK were granted it. This is the same PM that granted foreign students 2 year work visas on graduation. Hardly the actions of a bunch of Nazis. The huff and puff about immigration is entirely superficial, because at heart the conservatives are a party of business and they know full well immigration benefits the country. Their stance on immigration is best seen as a law and order issue, with a veneer of pandering to Daily Mail readers.
true_religion 4y ago
The refugee crisis is a global issue, and it shouldn’t be left to any single country to shoulder the burden simply because it is the first port of a refugees arrival. Rwanda is a country with a recent successful history of rehabilitating refugees, and the president reached out to offer a home to those who need it. For geography alone, the UK would be a better destination for the flood of Ukrainian refugees coming in, where as African asylum seekers would be better served by a country close to home. As a member of an ECOWAS county, I’m happy to see that once again counties on the African continent are handling their own refugee situation. Immediately post WW2, this was more common practice and it lead to deeper economic and social ties between the counties of my region. Our stepping to perform a social good is in no way a support of right wing sentiment.
- Zenst 4y ago
  > Rwanda is a country with a recent successful history of rehabilitating refugees, and the president reached out to offer a home to those who need it. Not sure how well there success is measured after recently finding out about this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/asylum-seekers-resettled-rwanda-eu-scheme-abandoned-poverty/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people...
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    Israel also had a similar arrangement which collapsed after it was found to break Israeli law. Apparently some journalists tried to track down the refugees involved in that scheme some years later and found barely a handful had remained in the country. My suspicion is this is just a short term attempt to boost the PMs popularity among the segment of his support base who think mistreatment of refugees and immigrants is a good thing. It's not a serious attempt to change substantive policy.
    - Zenst 4y ago
      It's just sweeping a problem under a carpet approach. Real solution is alas one that eludes us today. The real issue is the blur in lines between economic migrant and refugee, with one used to bismish the other and anything to address the former being classed as an attack upon the later. Hence the whole subject is just a can or worms that just does not get dealt with. As for the UK, when the majority of the economic and refugee's arrive via safe countries like France then it kinda adds a whole layer of debate that you just don't get with other countries migrant/refugee problems. Honestly should be that people who need to escape a country for fear of their life should be able to walk into any other countries embasy and apply for asylum. That though is still not a thing, which only helps fuel illegal smugglers who will take refugees and economic migrants equally if they have the money. Which is the bigger sadness of all with how things are working currently as how many true refugee's in fear of their life have died as they had no means to pay for a way out! That whole aspect of thought is just sadening and yet, overlooked as the focus is all about those who had the means or morals to pay smugglers and can imagine there are those who probably had the means but equally ethics and morals that meant they were unwilling to pay in effect crimininals. So I guess changing how people apply for Ayslum and the ability to walk into the nearest forign embassy would certainly be a start in solving things. Then distibution equally needs to be fair around the Globe, so no one country becomes burgened, though that would be a whole area of debate the UN could work out. Certainly the ability to apply at embassys would be huge improvment.

mantas 4y ago

Denmark's left-wing government is planning to send away asylum seekers too. It's interesting times when protecting borders from illegal immigration is seen as „far right“. It's not „far right“ rising, it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwanda-transfer-asylum-seekers-2022-04-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwan...

cjrp 4y ago
> protecting borders from illegal immigration Asylum-seeking is not illegal immigration.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  right, and they're going back once the situation in their home country stabilizes, correct?
- curiousgal 4y ago
  What happens when/if their asylum application gets denied though? At least in France they don't get forced to leave and they find themselves in a strange grey area.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  They can seek asylum in or from Rwanda then, right? I mean, it’s not like they are trying to immigrate to UK, they are just running for their lives, so safety in Rwanda should be good enough, no?
- Ntrails 4y ago
  > Asylum-seeking is not illegal immigration Economic migration under the guise of asylum seeking is though. And pretending that all the people who make the attempt to gain Asylum in the UK are legitimate non-economic migrants is absurd.
  - cjrp 4y ago
    > Economic migration under the guise of asylum seeking is though. Correct. As is murder, theft, etc. I don't think anything in my comment suggested they're not?
gambiting 4y ago
I don't think even the most fundamental left leaning people are against sending illegal immigrants away - the problem is that UK is choosing to send people away to Rwanda, basically telling them that it's a safe African country, good luck there. Ministers have confirmed that yeah, it's "possible" that for instance Ukrainian refugees could be sent there if they didn't follow the right procedures and are deemed "illegal". I can only imagine that if not for horrible optics, UK would send them to Australia. But oh well, I guess if your dream is to resurrect the British Empire, having a foreign penal colony is one of the requirements.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  The UK can't send asylum seekers to Australia because Australia is a sovereign entity and wouldn't accept them. Indeed Australia already has anti-asylum policies locally, and these influenced the model for the UK's decision.
  - gambiting 4y ago
    Well of course, it was a tongue in cheek comment - that UK would probably send people to Australia, just like it used to. I'm not saying that it's possible, realistic, or even a good idea in the first place.
- true_religion 4y ago
  What’s wrong with Rwanda? From the point of view of Africans, we see this as a Rwanda led initiative to take care of refugees in a country that is safe, and in an environment that is closer to their homelands. Although in the past Rwanda has had is troubles but … so did Ireland and the UK on different scale. Rwanda of today is a different place, and the current president has long experience in handling refugee situations and defusing the natural tensions of people in a refugee crises. Is it absolutely necessary for refugees to leave to go to a different continent, to live on an island where they will forever look like an “other” and have a culture and weather that is totally alien to them? There should be more to this equation than the thought of sending people to the most prosperous country that they can.
throwaway0191 4y ago
[flagged]
andybak 4y ago
> it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left. Everyone that learns about the Overton window is immediately convinced the other side has been pulling it in their direction for years.
- mantas 4y ago
  Are you trying to say that migration laws and practices and coverage in mass media didn't drift in certain direction compared to 20/40/60 years ago?
  - andybak 4y ago
    20? Probably not hugely. 40? Maybe in some aspects of policy. 60? Probably. But you're talking about Denmark and I know nothing about Danish domestic policies - which is why I was intentionally broad in my wording. The Overton window is poorly named. It's an irregularly shaped blob rather than a rectangular frame. Some things can move in different directions at different times.
jasonlotito 4y ago

temp8964 4y ago

What’s your reasonable definition of far-right?

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
There's a saying about the UK's far right parties (the likes of UKIP, National Front (1) etc) that in the long run it's not a winning proposition, as the Tories can always adopt the same rhetoric, and they always have better suits. This has indeed happened. 1) https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks-claims-tory-party-is-quite-literally-the-national-front-212309/ https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks...
- gadders 4y ago
  UKIP is not far-right. You can't just label anyone you disagree with as "Far Right". You have to base your argument on facts.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    You can't just label someone as "not Far Right", just because you agree with them. That's denial.
    - gadders 4y ago
      I would say the onus of proof would be on the accuser.
barneygale 4y ago
Immigration enforcement raids against mostly black/brown people. Putting them on flights to countries they left as infants. Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for "processing". Sending British citizens to the Carribean because we were too disorganised to issue them passports in the 50s. The Tory party has absorbed the UKIP/EDL/etc vote. It rules by populism alone at this stage.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> I’d say post-Brexit England has drifted away from the far right. > By any reasonable definition England is currently governed by the far right. These can both be true, IMHO you're talking about different things - 1) the position of the electorate and 2) the position of the government. And the growing gap between them.

simonh 4y ago

In the year to March around 3/4 of people seeking asylum in the UK were granted it. This is the same PM that granted foreign students 2 year work visas on graduation. Hardly the actions of a bunch of Nazis. The huff and puff about immigration is entirely superficial, because at heart the conservatives are a party of business and they know full well immigration benefits the country. Their stance on immigration is best seen as a law and order issue, with a veneer of pandering to Daily Mail readers.

true_religion 4y ago

The refugee crisis is a global issue, and it shouldn’t be left to any single country to shoulder the burden simply because it is the first port of a refugees arrival. Rwanda is a country with a recent successful history of rehabilitating refugees, and the president reached out to offer a home to those who need it. For geography alone, the UK would be a better destination for the flood of Ukrainian refugees coming in, where as African asylum seekers would be better served by a country close to home. As a member of an ECOWAS county, I’m happy to see that once again counties on the African continent are handling their own refugee situation. Immediately post WW2, this was more common practice and it lead to deeper economic and social ties between the counties of my region. Our stepping to perform a social good is in no way a support of right wing sentiment.

Zenst 4y ago
> Rwanda is a country with a recent successful history of rehabilitating refugees, and the president reached out to offer a home to those who need it. Not sure how well there success is measured after recently finding out about this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/asylum-seekers-resettled-rwanda-eu-scheme-abandoned-poverty/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people...
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  Israel also had a similar arrangement which collapsed after it was found to break Israeli law. Apparently some journalists tried to track down the refugees involved in that scheme some years later and found barely a handful had remained in the country. My suspicion is this is just a short term attempt to boost the PMs popularity among the segment of his support base who think mistreatment of refugees and immigrants is a good thing. It's not a serious attempt to change substantive policy.
  - Zenst 4y ago
    It's just sweeping a problem under a carpet approach. Real solution is alas one that eludes us today. The real issue is the blur in lines between economic migrant and refugee, with one used to bismish the other and anything to address the former being classed as an attack upon the later. Hence the whole subject is just a can or worms that just does not get dealt with. As for the UK, when the majority of the economic and refugee's arrive via safe countries like France then it kinda adds a whole layer of debate that you just don't get with other countries migrant/refugee problems. Honestly should be that people who need to escape a country for fear of their life should be able to walk into any other countries embasy and apply for asylum. That though is still not a thing, which only helps fuel illegal smugglers who will take refugees and economic migrants equally if they have the money. Which is the bigger sadness of all with how things are working currently as how many true refugee's in fear of their life have died as they had no means to pay for a way out! That whole aspect of thought is just sadening and yet, overlooked as the focus is all about those who had the means or morals to pay smugglers and can imagine there are those who probably had the means but equally ethics and morals that meant they were unwilling to pay in effect crimininals. So I guess changing how people apply for Ayslum and the ability to walk into the nearest forign embassy would certainly be a start in solving things. Then distibution equally needs to be fair around the Globe, so no one country becomes burgened, though that would be a whole area of debate the UN could work out. Certainly the ability to apply at embassys would be huge improvment.