It's a common thing, living on the South East coast, to see the boats landing from France, and 8+ people jump out and hit the beach. Some disperse into the streets, others wait for the police to...
It's a common thing, living on the South East coast, to see the boats landing from France, and 8+ people jump out and hit the beach. Some disperse into the streets, others wait for the police to show up.
Now the policy will be to detain, evaluate status and put them on a flight to Rwanda where the quality of life is NOT the same.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I know I'll upset some by saying that I think it's poor judgement on the asylum seeker's part to illegally border jump, and then claim that if they are sent back they will have X issues, which is against human rights. It's playing with laws, and they don't have to prove it.
However, I also understand border jumping for a better life. They'll be given food, money, shelter and entered into programmes that will enable them to become part of the UK population. The flip side is obviously abusing this.
I'm very divided by this. I can see the pros and cons, from both perspectives. Thoughts from others?
Ok, but this is a question which can actually be answered. Even this BBC article has some stats: between 2018 and 2023, only 2% of arrivals by boat were returned to their home country after their...
Ok, but this is a question which can actually be answered. Even this BBC article has some stats: between 2018 and 2023, only 2% of arrivals by boat were returned to their home country after their case had been processed. Therefore, the vast majority (98%) seemingly have valid asylum claims under UK law. You call it "border jumping", but seeking asylum is very much a real thing that is not illegal.
Well more specifically it was unlawful until they just passed a law effectively overruling the court and forcing them to treat it as a safe country (ridiculous but that's what you get with...
Well more specifically it was unlawful until they just passed a law effectively overruling the court and forcing them to treat it as a safe country (ridiculous but that's what you get with parliamentary sovereignty). The biggest potential challenge left is now from the ECHR.
That's not quite the same statistic, and in fairness, this is a place where it's often quite difficult to get a good measure of what's going on because the system is complicated. 2% is the number...
That's not quite the same statistic, and in fairness, this is a place where it's often quite difficult to get a good measure of what's going on because the system is complicated.
2% is the number of people who originally crossed via small boats to the UK and have been returned to their home countries. But around 33% of people have their asylum application denied - the other ~30% have not been deported yet. (This is typically for various reasons — it takes time to deport people, and asylum seekers also have the ability to appeal their decisions, which means that someone can have their application denied, but still be in a pending state.)
According to the Parliament briefing on asylum statistics, three quarters of people appeal after their application has been denied, and a third of those who appeal succeed. Unfortunately, I don't know exactly how this factors into the 33% statistic (i.e. whether that's "denied at any point" or "denied in the first round of decision"). It should be noted, though, that appeals often succeed on technicalities — the immigration system and the courts are both completely swamped, leading to plenty of process errors that render the initial decisions invalid.
Thank you! I definitely don't mean to be misleading or anything, I had interpreted my quoted statistic as reflecting the total number who get rejected, not just the ones who get rejected AND have...
Thank you! I definitely don't mean to be misleading or anything, I had interpreted my quoted statistic as reflecting the total number who get rejected, not just the ones who get rejected AND have already been reported. I didn't recognize the distinction. In any case, this would mean 65%-75% (depending on how the point in your last paragraph is understood) of asylum cases get approved. Not quite as overwhelming of a majority as my original comment implies, but a strong majority nonetheless.
No worries, it's presented in a confusing way there! Yeah, I didn't quote the 75% number because I couldn't tell exactly where was percentage was coming from, and I didn't want to include...
No worries, it's presented in a confusing way there! Yeah, I didn't quote the 75% number because I couldn't tell exactly where was percentage was coming from, and I didn't want to include overlapping groups there, but certainly the majority of cases in the UK will get approved.
Your comment seems to imply that they are doing this for a higher quality of life, but that the issues they will claim will likely be false. Is it your opinion that their human rights are not...
Your comment seems to imply that they are doing this for a higher quality of life, but that the issues they will claim will likely be false. Is it your opinion that their human rights are not being violated where they are from, generally? It's not actually dangerous enough there to warrant refugee status? Is there an option for them that doesn't include border jumping, and if so, what is prohibiting people from doing that instead?
I'm from the US and know absolutely nothing about refugees in other places. I know the main reason that people illegally enter the US from the south is that a legal alternative is not available to them. Many visas get denied from the poorest countries. And it's difficult here to renew them, unless you are a student or you marry a citizen. I guess if it's bad enough for you, it's worth the risks. To me, the fact that someone is willing to risk their life to cross dangerously lends credibility to a claim that life is worth much less where they are coming from. Whether it's a human rights violation status I can't really say.
Interestingly, looking solely at UNHCR resettlement schemes (this doesn't include e.g. the Ukrainian resettlement scheme and some Afghan resettlement schemes), the UK is up near the top for...
Interestingly, looking solely at UNHCR resettlement schemes (this doesn't include e.g. the Ukrainian resettlement scheme and some Afghan resettlement schemes), the UK is up near the top for countries resettling individuals. This has changed a lot since the pandemic, and more recently the UK has focused mainly on the non-UNHCR schemes, so I agree that the situation could be improved, but it's one of the things we should be proud of.
In particular, in 2023, the UK took in more people via safe and legal routes than via asylum. In fairness, this was mainly due to the large number of Ukrainian refugees, but it was a surprising statistic for me.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I think there are very limited routes for claiming asylum in the UK from outside the UK. The key point here, though, is that there are other refugee schemes...
Ah, thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I think there are very limited routes for claiming asylum in the UK from outside the UK. The key point here, though, is that there are other refugee schemes that the UK does (or at least did) take part in, and that these account for a significant proportion of the total number of refugees who end up in the UK each year. To talk solely in terms of asylum is to miss the larger picture here.
(To be clear, the UK could and should be doing a lot more, but I think it's reasonable to ask whether the asylum process is the best way for that to happen.)
The issue is that the media feed us a lot of refugee border jumpers are doing it for no better than reason that to get into the UK welfare system and send money back home to family and friends....
The issue is that the media feed us a lot of refugee border jumpers are doing it for no better than reason that to get into the UK welfare system and send money back home to family and friends.
It's really hard to judge if this is a good or bad thing because so many are doing it, we're overwhelmed to the point people cannot be reviewed fully to see if they are a legitimate asylum seeker or not.
With my own eyes, twice. I live far enough away from the coast that it takes a short trip to hit the beaches where they are known for landing. It's local (and national) news reporting this most of...
With my own eyes, twice.
I live far enough away from the coast that it takes a short trip to hit the beaches where they are known for landing.
It's local (and national) news reporting this most of the time.
Denmark has been looking to copy this. They've been trying to establish camps/housing in Rwanda and they claim that asylum seekers will have Danish standards of living there. I somehow highly...
Denmark has been looking to copy this. They've been trying to establish camps/housing in Rwanda and they claim that asylum seekers will have Danish standards of living there. I somehow highly doubt it.. agree with it or not, I'm sure it will be a great way for the government to deter future immigrants from coming here which is probably the main goal
It's clearly working for the UK even though nobody has actually been sent to Rwanda. Ultimately I think that this all comes back to the EU being extremely weak on migration. As bad as things are...
Ultimately I think that this all comes back to the EU being extremely weak on migration. As bad as things are in the UK and Ireland they're far, far worse in mainland Europe.
The Telegraph is a very strongly Conservative paper, of course they'd say it was working. Migration Observatory, who have rather less of an agenda, are less sure. "Crucially, it is not possible to...
The Telegraph is a very strongly Conservative paper, of course they'd say it was working.
"Crucially, it is not possible to disentangle the effects of [world events] and other factors from the effects of a particular policy, such as the Rwanda scheme, or the Illegal Migration Act."
Well the UK government says that it's too early to judge the impact of the Rwanda plan on Ireland but the Irish deputy prime minister, and foreign minister, said it's impacting Ireland. See BBC...
Well the UK government says that it's too early to judge the impact of the Rwanda plan on Ireland but the Irish deputy prime minister, and foreign minister, said it's impacting Ireland. See BBC Source.
It's a common thing, living on the South East coast, to see the boats landing from France, and 8+ people jump out and hit the beach. Some disperse into the streets, others wait for the police to show up.
Now the policy will be to detain, evaluate status and put them on a flight to Rwanda where the quality of life is NOT the same.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I know I'll upset some by saying that I think it's poor judgement on the asylum seeker's part to illegally border jump, and then claim that if they are sent back they will have X issues, which is against human rights. It's playing with laws, and they don't have to prove it.
However, I also understand border jumping for a better life. They'll be given food, money, shelter and entered into programmes that will enable them to become part of the UK population. The flip side is obviously abusing this.
I'm very divided by this. I can see the pros and cons, from both perspectives. Thoughts from others?
Ok, but this is a question which can actually be answered. Even this BBC article has some stats: between 2018 and 2023, only 2% of arrivals by boat were returned to their home country after their case had been processed. Therefore, the vast majority (98%) seemingly have valid asylum claims under UK law. You call it "border jumping", but seeking asylum is very much a real thing that is not illegal.
Which is not to say everything here is above board. The UK Supreme Court has found this Rwanda plan to be unlawful, but the Tories are going ahead with it anyway.
Well more specifically it was unlawful until they just passed a law effectively overruling the court and forcing them to treat it as a safe country (ridiculous but that's what you get with parliamentary sovereignty). The biggest potential challenge left is now from the ECHR.
Ah I somehow missed this update as an outside observer. Pretty ridiculous, I agree, but better than outright ignoring the court I suppose.
That's not quite the same statistic, and in fairness, this is a place where it's often quite difficult to get a good measure of what's going on because the system is complicated.
2% is the number of people who originally crossed via small boats to the UK and have been returned to their home countries. But around 33% of people have their asylum application denied - the other ~30% have not been deported yet. (This is typically for various reasons — it takes time to deport people, and asylum seekers also have the ability to appeal their decisions, which means that someone can have their application denied, but still be in a pending state.)
According to the Parliament briefing on asylum statistics, three quarters of people appeal after their application has been denied, and a third of those who appeal succeed. Unfortunately, I don't know exactly how this factors into the 33% statistic (i.e. whether that's "denied at any point" or "denied in the first round of decision"). It should be noted, though, that appeals often succeed on technicalities — the immigration system and the courts are both completely swamped, leading to plenty of process errors that render the initial decisions invalid.
Thank you! I definitely don't mean to be misleading or anything, I had interpreted my quoted statistic as reflecting the total number who get rejected, not just the ones who get rejected AND have already been reported. I didn't recognize the distinction. In any case, this would mean 65%-75% (depending on how the point in your last paragraph is understood) of asylum cases get approved. Not quite as overwhelming of a majority as my original comment implies, but a strong majority nonetheless.
No worries, it's presented in a confusing way there! Yeah, I didn't quote the 75% number because I couldn't tell exactly where was percentage was coming from, and I didn't want to include overlapping groups there, but certainly the majority of cases in the UK will get approved.
Your comment seems to imply that they are doing this for a higher quality of life, but that the issues they will claim will likely be false. Is it your opinion that their human rights are not being violated where they are from, generally? It's not actually dangerous enough there to warrant refugee status? Is there an option for them that doesn't include border jumping, and if so, what is prohibiting people from doing that instead?
I'm from the US and know absolutely nothing about refugees in other places. I know the main reason that people illegally enter the US from the south is that a legal alternative is not available to them. Many visas get denied from the poorest countries. And it's difficult here to renew them, unless you are a student or you marry a citizen. I guess if it's bad enough for you, it's worth the risks. To me, the fact that someone is willing to risk their life to cross dangerously lends credibility to a claim that life is worth much less where they are coming from. Whether it's a human rights violation status I can't really say.
Interestingly, looking solely at UNHCR resettlement schemes (this doesn't include e.g. the Ukrainian resettlement scheme and some Afghan resettlement schemes), the UK is up near the top for countries resettling individuals. This has changed a lot since the pandemic, and more recently the UK has focused mainly on the non-UNHCR schemes, so I agree that the situation could be improved, but it's one of the things we should be proud of.
In particular, in 2023, the UK took in more people via safe and legal routes than via asylum. In fairness, this was mainly due to the large number of Ukrainian refugees, but it was a surprising statistic for me.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I think there are very limited routes for claiming asylum in the UK from outside the UK. The key point here, though, is that there are other refugee schemes that the UK does (or at least did) take part in, and that these account for a significant proportion of the total number of refugees who end up in the UK each year. To talk solely in terms of asylum is to miss the larger picture here.
(To be clear, the UK could and should be doing a lot more, but I think it's reasonable to ask whether the asylum process is the best way for that to happen.)
The issue is that the media feed us a lot of refugee border jumpers are doing it for no better than reason that to get into the UK welfare system and send money back home to family and friends.
It's really hard to judge if this is a good or bad thing because so many are doing it, we're overwhelmed to the point people cannot be reviewed fully to see if they are a legitimate asylum seeker or not.
How many times would you estimate that you've seen that?
With my own eyes, twice.
I live far enough away from the coast that it takes a short trip to hit the beaches where they are known for landing.
It's local (and national) news reporting this most of the time.
Denmark has been looking to copy this. They've been trying to establish camps/housing in Rwanda and they claim that asylum seekers will have Danish standards of living there. I somehow highly doubt it.. agree with it or not, I'm sure it will be a great way for the government to deter future immigrants from coming here which is probably the main goal
It's clearly working for the UK even though nobody has actually been sent to Rwanda.
Ultimately I think that this all comes back to the EU being extremely weak on migration. As bad as things are in the UK and Ireland they're far, far worse in mainland Europe.
The Telegraph is a very strongly Conservative paper, of course they'd say it was working.
Migration Observatory, who have rather less of an agenda, are less sure.
"Crucially, it is not possible to disentangle the effects of [world events] and other factors from the effects of a particular policy, such as the Rwanda scheme, or the Illegal Migration Act."
Well the UK government says that it's too early to judge the impact of the Rwanda plan on Ireland but the Irish deputy prime minister, and foreign minister, said it's impacting Ireland. See BBC Source.