Scroll down (if necessary) to Sushi Rinak's bet with that equally horrible fuckwit Piers Morgan about transporting vulnerable human beings to a concentration camp in Africa...
This is really something I could see Donald J. doing. Except he'd book a room at a casino to announce the bet.
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
The UK is more than permitted - it is party to treaties that require it to grant asylum to those eligible. The idiocy in this is passing laws that prevent us abiding by our obligations. I suppose you'd have been telling those on the St Louis they were idiots for trying to get into the US and Canada.
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
The UK is more than permitted - it is party to treaties that require it to grant asylum to those eligible. The idiocy in this is passing laws that prevent us abiding by our obligations. I suppose you'd have been telling those on the St Louis they were idiots for trying to get into the US and Canada.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
The UK is more than permitted - it is party to treaties that require it to grant asylum to those eligible. The idiocy in this is passing laws that prevent us abiding by our obligations. I suppose you'd have been telling those on the St Louis they were idiots for trying to get into the US and Canada.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
You mean that our government has chosen not to honour its international obligations to grant asylum to qualifying asylum seekers. That is a different thing our "not being permitted" to do so.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
@Telford I think you are confusing two different things. It's possible that your training may make it difficult to conceive that if the UK Parliament passes laws that it thinks can have that effect inside the UK, that does not necessarily give it the power to change anything anywhere else or unilaterally to break an international treaty.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
There's a good little pot of cash available for the incoming government, because of the stupid wording of the illegal Illegal Immigration Act. There are 22,000 (and counting) asylum seekers who have arrived by irregular means since the Act was passed, but the illegal Illegal Immigration Act means they're not allowed to grant them asylum, nor can they be deported elsewhere. So, the government is spending £1.5m per day to house people who, except for their own idiotic notions enshrined in poorly considered legislation, would have been granted asylum (and, hence be able to work to pay their own way and pay taxes) or returned to France (granted, the option to return asylum seekers to European nations they passed through to get here was a victim of Brexit, another act of idiocy).
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
The UK is more than permitted - it is party to treaties that require it to grant asylum to those eligible. The idiocy in this is passing laws that prevent us abiding by our obligations. I suppose you'd have been telling those on the St Louis they were idiots for trying to get into the US and Canada.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
Which is precisely the problem that the Government have got themselves into, the illegal Illegal Migration Act means that under UK law they won't process the asylum claims of people who they deem to be "illegal migrants" (ie: those who have no choice but to cross the Channel in small boats, top of Eurostar trains, etc - no choice because there's no official route open to them). But, because the illegal Act doesn't align with international treaties there's no option open for the government to remove those people to any safe third nation. Which means that the only option open to the government is find hotel rooms, space on prison barges, huts in camps etc to house them.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
@Telford I think you are confusing two different things. It's possible that your training may make it difficult to conceive that if the UK Parliament passes laws that it thinks can have that effect inside the UK, that does not necessarily give it the power to change anything anywhere else or unilaterally to break an international treaty.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
So what is the purpose of the Illegal Migration Act 2023
...if the UK Parliament passes laws that it thinks can have that effect inside the UK, that does not necessarily give it the power to change anything anywhere else or unilaterally to break an international treaty.
But unless some overarching international body has the authority to physically compel the UK to follow that treaty within the UK's own borders(eg. by arresting non-compliant British politicians), then the government does, in fact, have the power to break those treaties.
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
What would render that British law unenforceable is the Irish military, plus the willingness of other nations and/or international bodies to defend Ireland, via military support, economic sanctions against the UK etc. In the absence of those things, Westminister's law abolishing the Republic could be very effective indeed.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
@Telford I think you are confusing two different things. It's possible that your training may make it difficult to conceive that if the UK Parliament passes laws that it thinks can have that effect inside the UK, that does not necessarily give it the power to change anything anywhere else or unilaterally to break an international treaty.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
So what is the purpose of the Illegal Migration Act 2023
That is a very good question.
Just to clarify a few points:
1. Under international treaty obligations, the UK must assess individuals' claims and grant refugee status to anyone with a legitimate fear of persecution or harm if they return to their country of origin. (That also is what UK law says).
2. In order to claim asylum, an individual must on arrival, present themselves to the authorities in the UK. (With specific, very limited exceptions, it is not possible to make such a claim until in the UK).
3. The vast majority of people fleeing cannot travel by regular means as their country of origin will not allow it or simply the means of regular travel do not exist.
4. The Illegal Migration Act 2023, for the first time, effectively makes entering the UK by irregular means illegal.
Previously it was a crime to enter the UK without appropriate documentation and a right to do so. However, the law specified that an individual would not be guilty of said crime if they promptly claimed asylum on arrival in the UK. Hence, prior to the 2023 Act, someone crossing the channel by small boat (or any other means) had unequivocally not committed a crime provided they made a claim for asylum. (The most recent Home Office figures put this at 98% of people who crossed the channel by this route).
So, anyone fleeing from any country (with very specific exceptions) can claim asylum in the UK provided: 1) They are here and 2) They did not enter by proscribed means despite the fact that anyone needing to claim asylum almost certainly cannot enter the UK by regular means.
So what is the purpose of the Act? That's actually quite a difficult question to answer. If the purpose is to solve our immigration 'crisis' then it clearly does no such thing. Not least because no such crisis exists. In order to answer that question one has to impute motive to the authors of the Act as one cannot deduce purpose from effect.
Finally, one could suppose that the purpose was to deter asylum claims. I.e. the message is "Don't come to the UK, you will not be allowed to stay!" There are big issues with that idea; primarily that there is no evidence that it works. The Push factors that make people migrate across the world are much greater than the fear of rejection in the UK. Desperate people will still try. The reason the UK is appealing is primarily one of language. If you have to rebuild your life from nothing, going somewhere where you have some knowledge of how to communicate is a really good start. Remember that English is the world's most widely spoken second language. Despite this, the UK gets a small number of asylum claims compared to other nations - primarily because it is an Island and therefore difficult to reach.
The purpose of the Act is not to reduce migration. It will not do so.
The purpose of the 2023 Illegal Immigration bill was to(*delete as appropriate):
a) appear to be doing something*
b) make the lives of people applying for asylum in the UK worse*
c) make it impossible to claim asylum in the UK*
d) score political points by being seen to be 'tough' on immigrants*
For the sake of completeness, one must consider that the government genuinely believed the act would serve some positive purpose. However, this theory very quickly runs into trouble. It is unlikely that they are that stupid. Even if they are though, there is no excuse because the inevitable consequences of this Bill were laid out for them and made clear.
I will not answer your question. I have thoughts but will not speak to their motives. I will insist, however, that it is demonstrable that there is no possible good or practical purpose of the Bill.
It should be repealed as soon as possible. I hope an incoming government will do so. I will strongly criticise them if they do not.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
@Telford I think you are confusing two different things. It's possible that your training may make it difficult to conceive that if the UK Parliament passes laws that it thinks can have that effect inside the UK, that does not necessarily give it the power to change anything anywhere else or unilaterally to break an international treaty.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
So what is the purpose of the Illegal Migration Act 2023
To demonise desperate people so as to appeal to the most unpleasantly hateful and empathy free elements of British society.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
@Telford I think you are confusing two different things. It's possible that your training may make it difficult to conceive that if the UK Parliament passes laws that it thinks can have that effect inside the UK, that does not necessarily give it the power to change anything anywhere else or unilaterally to break an international treaty.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
So what is the purpose of the Illegal Migration Act 2023
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
@Telford I think you are confusing two different things. It's possible that your training may make it difficult to conceive that if the UK Parliament passes laws that it thinks can have that effect inside the UK, that does not necessarily give it the power to change anything anywhere else or unilaterally to break an international treaty.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
So what is the purpose of the Illegal Migration Act 2023
To placate certain members of the Tory Party.
Yep. Successive Tory governments have been either sympathetic to or scared of the right of their party. Said right of the party are now trying to convince the rest of the party and the country that they are the true Conservatives, and that the other are socialists.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
@Telford I think you are confusing two different things. It's possible that your training may make it difficult to conceive that if the UK Parliament passes laws that it thinks can have that effect inside the UK, that does not necessarily give it the power to change anything anywhere else or unilaterally to break an international treaty.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
So what is the purpose of the Illegal Migration Act 2023
That is a very good question.
Just to clarify a few points:
1. Under international treaty obligations, the UK must assess individuals' claims and grant refugee status to anyone with a legitimate fear of persecution or harm if they return to their country of origin. (That also is what UK law says).
2. In order to claim asylum, an individual must on arrival, present themselves to the authorities in the UK. (With specific, very limited exceptions, it is not possible to make such a claim until in the UK).
3. The vast majority of people fleeing cannot travel by regular means as their country of origin will not allow it or simply the means of regular travel do not exist.
4. The Illegal Migration Act 2023, for the first time, effectively makes entering the UK by irregular means illegal.
Previously it was a crime to enter the UK without appropriate documentation and a right to do so. However, the law specified that an individual would not be guilty of said crime if they promptly claimed asylum on arrival in the UK. Hence, prior to the 2023 Act, someone crossing the channel by small boat (or any other means) had unequivocally not committed a crime provided they made a claim for asylum. (The most recent Home Office figures put this at 98% of people who crossed the channel by this route).
So, anyone fleeing from any country (with very specific exceptions) can claim asylum in the UK provided: 1) They are here and 2) They did not enter by proscribed means despite the fact that anyone needing to claim asylum almost certainly cannot enter the UK by regular means.
So what is the purpose of the Act? That's actually quite a difficult question to answer. If the purpose is to solve our immigration 'crisis' then it clearly does no such thing. Not least because no such crisis exists. In order to answer that question one has to impute motive to the authors of the Act as one cannot deduce purpose from effect.
Finally, one could suppose that the purpose was to deter asylum claims. I.e. the message is "Don't come to the UK, you will not be allowed to stay!" There are big issues with that idea; primarily that there is no evidence that it works. The Push factors that make people migrate across the world are much greater than the fear of rejection in the UK. Desperate people will still try. The reason the UK is appealing is primarily one of language. If you have to rebuild your life from nothing, going somewhere where you have some knowledge of how to communicate is a really good start. Remember that English is the world's most widely spoken second language. Despite this, the UK gets a small number of asylum claims compared to other nations - primarily because it is an Island and therefore difficult to reach.
The purpose of the Act is not to reduce migration. It will not do so.
The purpose of the 2023 Illegal Immigration bill was to(*delete as appropriate):
a) appear to be doing something*
b) make the lives of people applying for asylum in the UK worse*
c) make it impossible to claim asylum in the UK*
d) score political points by being seen to be 'tough' on immigrants*
For the sake of completeness, one must consider that the government genuinely believed the act would serve some positive purpose. However, this theory very quickly runs into trouble. It is unlikely that they are that stupid. Even if they are though, there is no excuse because the inevitable consequences of this Bill were laid out for them and made clear.
I will not answer your question. I have thoughts but will not speak to their motives. I will insist, however, that it is demonstrable that there is no possible good or practical purpose of the Bill.
It should be repealed as soon as possible. I hope an incoming government will do so. I will strongly criticise them if they do not.
AFZ
I am going to shock you by agreeing with all you say. This act hasn't solved anything at all.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
I'm not sure that "objectively a safe country" is actually a thing, because "safe" is a matter of degree, and of opinion about what degree of risk is acceptable.
The present government would like to say that they have assurances from the government of Rwanda about the treatment that refugees would get, and so that makes it "safe".
There exist objective facts about safety. One can look at officially recorded rates of particular crimes. One can survey particular populations and measure to what extent they are victims of particular crimes, and look at how that compares to the official record. There's a whole bunch of reasonably objective facts that would allow one to draw a conclusion about safety.
You couldn't make it up. These people should surely be in a safe place, where they can do no further harm. Rwanda, perhaps?
They have no one who is suitable for the job of PM. At least no one the party as a whole can get behind. I never saw Boris’ charisma but apparently he has some. I cannot see people voting for the man who laughed in their faces over COVID, but memories are short.
And, sadly, lots of people are naturally Conservative (Big C). I spoke to a former colleague recently who was a big Conservative supporter.
He was banging on about Starmer not initially declaring his legal work earnings whilst remaining apparently oblivious to the venality of Johnson and how Truss and Kwarteng had brought the country to the verge of cataclysmic economic collapse.
There're still people out there who'd support Johnson because he apparently 'got Brexit done.'
That's all that counts in their view. Venality, corruption and lack of integrity can apparently be overlooked in such circumstances.
It is a pretty popular hobby to point out the sins of members of the other team, whilst being blind when your own team commits those same faults.
I've mentioned this before on these boards.
Some years ago I gave that the name "Our Boys Syndrome".
i.e. The other lot are terrorists, savages, scum that all right minded people should regard as outside the scope of humanity. All those on their side that don't agree with me and publicly oppose them should be tarred with the same brush. Yes, some of our lot in the excesses of the moment may go a bit too far sometimes, but it's in the right cause, they are provoked and ultimately, they're good at heart because they're "Our Boys".
Initially that was with reference to both sides in Northern Ireland, applied equally to both communities, to the various factions of IRA and the UDA and to their sympathisers elsewhere.
Alas, time has shown how it has continued to be applicable to so many other conflicts since, and currently in world wide hand wringing over Gaza.
It is a pretty popular hobby to point out the sins of members of the other team, whilst being blind when your own team commits those same faults.
I've mentioned this before on these boards.
Some years ago I gave that the name "Our Boys Syndrome".
i.e. The other lot are terrorists, savages, scum that all right minded people should regard as outside the scope of humanity. All those on their side that don't agree with me and publicly oppose them should be tarred with the same brush. Yes, some of our lot in the excesses of the moment may go a bit too far sometimes, but it's in the right cause, they are provoked and ultimately, they're good at heart because they're "Our Boys".
Initially that was with reference to both sides in Northern Ireland, applied equally to both communities, to the various factions of IRA and the UDA and to their sympathisers elsewhere.
Alas, time has shown how it has continued to be applicable to so many other conflicts since, and currently in world wide hand wringing over Gaza.
It is a universal human tendency. We are all vulnerable to it. How well I succeed at avoiding this trap, I cannot judge but I do try.
It is a pretty popular hobby to point out the sins of members of the other team, whilst being blind when your own team commits those same faults.
I've mentioned this before on these boards.
Some years ago I gave that the name "Our Boys Syndrome".
i.e. The other lot are terrorists, savages, scum that all right minded people should regard as outside the scope of humanity. All those on their side that don't agree with me and publicly oppose them should be tarred with the same brush. Yes, some of our lot in the excesses of the moment may go a bit too far sometimes, but it's in the right cause, they are provoked and ultimately, they're good at heart because they're "Our Boys".
Initially that was with reference to both sides in Northern Ireland, applied equally to both communities, to the various factions of IRA and the UDA and to their sympathisers elsewhere.
Alas, time has shown how it has continued to be applicable to so many other conflicts since, and currently in world wide hand wringing over Gaza.
It is a universal human tendency. We are all vulnerable to it. How well I succeed at avoiding this trap, I cannot judge but I do try.
No, no, the meta element of this is that it's only they who have this problem.
It is a pretty popular hobby to point out the sins of members of the other team, whilst being blind when your own team commits those same faults.
I've mentioned this before on these boards.
Some years ago I gave that the name "Our Boys Syndrome".
i.e. The other lot are terrorists, savages, scum that all right minded people should regard as outside the scope of humanity. All those on their side that don't agree with me and publicly oppose them should be tarred with the same brush. Yes, some of our lot in the excesses of the moment may go a bit too far sometimes, but it's in the right cause, they are provoked and ultimately, they're good at heart because they're "Our Boys".
Initially that was with reference to both sides in Northern Ireland, applied equally to both communities, to the various factions of IRA and the UDA and to their sympathisers elsewhere.
Alas, time has shown how it has continued to be applicable to so many other conflicts since, and currently in world wide hand wringing over Gaza.
It is a universal human tendency. We are all vulnerable to it. How well I succeed at avoiding this trap, I cannot judge but I do try.
No, no, the meta element of this is that it's only they who have this problem.
It is a pretty popular hobby to point out the sins of members of the other team, whilst being blind when your own team commits those same faults.
I've mentioned this before on these boards.
Some years ago I gave that the name "Our Boys Syndrome".
i.e. The other lot are terrorists, savages, scum that all right minded people should regard as outside the scope of humanity. All those on their side that don't agree with me and publicly oppose them should be tarred with the same brush. Yes, some of our lot in the excesses of the moment may go a bit too far sometimes, but it's in the right cause, they are provoked and ultimately, they're good at heart because they're "Our Boys".
Initially that was with reference to both sides in Northern Ireland, applied equally to both communities, to the various factions of IRA and the UDA and to their sympathisers elsewhere.
Alas, time has shown how it has continued to be applicable to so many other conflicts since, and currently in world wide hand wringing over Gaza.
It is a universal human tendency. We are all vulnerable to it. How well I succeed at avoiding this trap, I cannot judge but I do try.
No, no, the meta element of this is that it's only they who have this problem.
Thing is, while tankies and their ilk do exist, the tendency does seem far more prevalent on the right of politics.
One might certainly argue that Blair's government was negligent in tolerating collateral killing of civilians; but I don't think there's any serious suggestion that it encouraged intentionally killing civilians.
You say that because you are on the left of politics.
I might happen to agree with you but that's not necessarily an objective measure either.
When was the last time it was mainstream on the left to support the mass slaughter of civilians?
Was Blair's Labour Party the mainstream of the left?
This is dangerous nonsense.
You wanna argue that the invasion of Iraq was a geopolitical mistake? Fine. Not a hard case to make. You wanna argue that the Western Allies who invaded Iraq bear significant responsibility for the bloodshed that followed? Go ahead, there's a rational, moral and legal case for this. However, what you cannot argue with any credibility is that the US, British and other allied forces carried out mass slaughter of civilians in Iraq. This is simply not what happened. What happened was the removal of a dictator, coupled with hubris and incompetence, led to a nasty civil war* / proxy war waged from Iran.
Whatever you think of Blair's Labour Party or Blair himself or the Iraq invasion, the UK did not carry out mass slaughter of anyone in Iraq. This is a vital qualitative moral and legal difference. It's intellectually lazy at best to conflate the two.
AFZ
*All civil wars are nasty, it's merely a matter of degrees how nasty.
Thousands of Iraqi civilians died in coalition bombings. Certainly the ratio of military to civilian casualties, and the number of civilian deaths, are nothing like that in Gaza at present. It's not clear to me how high the death toll needs to be to count as "mass slaughter" but I would have thought that thousands in the space of a few weeks ought to be included.
You must have spent the last few months never turning on TV news or reading a newspaper to have missed 100,000 people living in Gaza who have been killed, wounded or disappeared (probably buried under destroyed buildings) since the start of October. Or, to have missed that a child is killed in Gaza on average every 10-15 minutes.
Or perhaps what you've missed is that the UK continues to supply arms used to slaughter those people, with the UK government rejecting any suggestion of blocking arms sales. Maybe you missed the unsubstantiated dodgy dossier produced by the Israeli government accusing UNWRA staff of aiding criminals, on the basis of which the UK government has stopped funds to the only organisation with any hope of addressing the urgent needs of more than 2 million people who need food, clean water, medicine, somewhere safe to live ... not to forget the needs once the bombs stop falling to rebuild hospitals and schools.
Comments
This is really something I could see Donald J. doing. Except he'd book a room at a casino to announce the bet.
Well, I assume that @Schroedingers Cat meant the politicians and media-types who were pushing Leave.
None of them influenced me.
Aye, right.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/08/child-poverty-britain-anger-gordon-brown
How can the tories sleep at night, knowing that this is what they've done to the country's poorest people?
Ah, so that's why the tory benches in Wastemonster are so often sparsely-populated...
The real act of idiocy was to illegally enter the UK when the UK is not permitted to grant them asylum
What are you talking about?
The UK is more than permitted - it is party to treaties that require it to grant asylum to those eligible. The idiocy in this is passing laws that prevent us abiding by our obligations. I suppose you'd have been telling those on the St Louis they were idiots for trying to get into the US and Canada.
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
You mean that our government has chosen not to honour its international obligations to grant asylum to qualifying asylum seekers. That is a different thing our "not being permitted" to do so.
It's a bit similar to the argument that you may have heard discussed recently as to where it places the UK courts if Parliament passes a law that treats objective facts as though they can be changed or ignored, i.e. if Rwanda is not objectively a safe country, can Parliament pass a law to say that as a fact it is safe, even if as a fact it is not?
There is another less controversial illustration of the same thing. Suppose Parliament were unilaterally to repeal the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which de facto made what was then called Southern Ireland independent. A person who inhabited an illusory world might imagine that would reabsorb it into the United Kingdom. I can think of people in the UK political establishment who might imagine that. You probably can as well. Obviously, though, it wouldn't, because nobody in Ireland would take any notice of it. Everyone would quite rightly recognise that irrespective of any dogmatic twaddle about the sovereignty of Parliament, and that no Parliament can bind its successors, that is beyond its powers.
But unless some overarching international body has the authority to physically compel the UK to follow that treaty within the UK's own borders(eg. by arresting non-compliant British politicians), then the government does, in fact, have the power to break those treaties.
What would render that British law unenforceable is the Irish military, plus the willingness of other nations and/or international bodies to defend Ireland, via military support, economic sanctions against the UK etc. In the absence of those things, Westminister's law abolishing the Republic could be very effective indeed.
That is a very good question.
Just to clarify a few points:
1. Under international treaty obligations, the UK must assess individuals' claims and grant refugee status to anyone with a legitimate fear of persecution or harm if they return to their country of origin. (That also is what UK law says).
2. In order to claim asylum, an individual must on arrival, present themselves to the authorities in the UK. (With specific, very limited exceptions, it is not possible to make such a claim until in the UK).
3. The vast majority of people fleeing cannot travel by regular means as their country of origin will not allow it or simply the means of regular travel do not exist.
4. The Illegal Migration Act 2023, for the first time, effectively makes entering the UK by irregular means illegal.
Previously it was a crime to enter the UK without appropriate documentation and a right to do so. However, the law specified that an individual would not be guilty of said crime if they promptly claimed asylum on arrival in the UK. Hence, prior to the 2023 Act, someone crossing the channel by small boat (or any other means) had unequivocally not committed a crime provided they made a claim for asylum. (The most recent Home Office figures put this at 98% of people who crossed the channel by this route).
So, anyone fleeing from any country (with very specific exceptions) can claim asylum in the UK provided: 1) They are here and 2) They did not enter by proscribed means despite the fact that anyone needing to claim asylum almost certainly cannot enter the UK by regular means.
So what is the purpose of the Act? That's actually quite a difficult question to answer. If the purpose is to solve our immigration 'crisis' then it clearly does no such thing. Not least because no such crisis exists. In order to answer that question one has to impute motive to the authors of the Act as one cannot deduce purpose from effect.
Finally, one could suppose that the purpose was to deter asylum claims. I.e. the message is "Don't come to the UK, you will not be allowed to stay!" There are big issues with that idea; primarily that there is no evidence that it works. The Push factors that make people migrate across the world are much greater than the fear of rejection in the UK. Desperate people will still try. The reason the UK is appealing is primarily one of language. If you have to rebuild your life from nothing, going somewhere where you have some knowledge of how to communicate is a really good start. Remember that English is the world's most widely spoken second language. Despite this, the UK gets a small number of asylum claims compared to other nations - primarily because it is an Island and therefore difficult to reach.
The purpose of the Act is not to reduce migration. It will not do so.
The purpose of the 2023 Illegal Immigration bill was to(*delete as appropriate):
a) appear to be doing something*
b) make the lives of people applying for asylum in the UK worse*
c) make it impossible to claim asylum in the UK*
d) score political points by being seen to be 'tough' on immigrants*
For the sake of completeness, one must consider that the government genuinely believed the act would serve some positive purpose. However, this theory very quickly runs into trouble. It is unlikely that they are that stupid. Even if they are though, there is no excuse because the inevitable consequences of this Bill were laid out for them and made clear.
I will not answer your question. I have thoughts but will not speak to their motives. I will insist, however, that it is demonstrable that there is no possible good or practical purpose of the Bill.
It should be repealed as soon as possible. I hope an incoming government will do so. I will strongly criticise them if they do not.
AFZ
To demonise desperate people so as to appeal to the most unpleasantly hateful and empathy free elements of British society.
To placate certain members of the Tory Party.
Yep. Successive Tory governments have been either sympathetic to or scared of the right of their party. Said right of the party are now trying to convince the rest of the party and the country that they are the true Conservatives, and that the other are socialists.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/11/bring-back-boris-johnson-kwasi-kwarteng-tells-rishi-sunak
You couldn't make it up. These people should surely be in a safe place, where they can do no further harm. Rwanda, perhaps?
I'm not sure that "objectively a safe country" is actually a thing, because "safe" is a matter of degree, and of opinion about what degree of risk is acceptable.
The present government would like to say that they have assurances from the government of Rwanda about the treatment that refugees would get, and so that makes it "safe".
There exist objective facts about safety. One can look at officially recorded rates of particular crimes. One can survey particular populations and measure to what extent they are victims of particular crimes, and look at how that compares to the official record. There's a whole bunch of reasonably objective facts that would allow one to draw a conclusion about safety.
But I don't think that "objectively safe" exists.
They have no one who is suitable for the job of PM. At least no one the party as a whole can get behind. I never saw Boris’ charisma but apparently he has some. I cannot see people voting for the man who laughed in their faces over COVID, but memories are short.
He was banging on about Starmer not initially declaring his legal work earnings whilst remaining apparently oblivious to the venality of Johnson and how Truss and Kwarteng had brought the country to the verge of cataclysmic economic collapse.
There're still people out there who'd support Johnson because he apparently 'got Brexit done.'
That's all that counts in their view. Venality, corruption and lack of integrity can apparently be overlooked in such circumstances.
There are fascists pretending to be humanitarians
Like cannibals on a health kick eating only vegetarians.
Some years ago I gave that the name "Our Boys Syndrome".
i.e. The other lot are terrorists, savages, scum that all right minded people should regard as outside the scope of humanity. All those on their side that don't agree with me and publicly oppose them should be tarred with the same brush. Yes, some of our lot in the excesses of the moment may go a bit too far sometimes, but it's in the right cause, they are provoked and ultimately, they're good at heart because they're "Our Boys".
Initially that was with reference to both sides in Northern Ireland, applied equally to both communities, to the various factions of IRA and the UDA and to their sympathisers elsewhere.
Alas, time has shown how it has continued to be applicable to so many other conflicts since, and currently in world wide hand wringing over Gaza.
It is a universal human tendency. We are all vulnerable to it. How well I succeed at avoiding this trap, I cannot judge but I do try.
No, no, the meta element of this is that it's only they who have this problem.
Hee hee.
Sorry.
Thing is, while tankies and their ilk do exist, the tendency does seem far more prevalent on the right of politics.
I might happen to agree with you but that's not necessarily an objective measure either.
When was the last time it was mainstream on the left to support the mass slaughter of civilians?
Was Blair's Labour Party the mainstream of the left?
No, not the leadership at least. New Labour was a movement of the centre and centre-right, just like Starmer's current genocide apologists.
I don't think that any party is supporting the mass slaughter of civilians.
Then you're not paying attention.
This is dangerous nonsense.
You wanna argue that the invasion of Iraq was a geopolitical mistake? Fine. Not a hard case to make. You wanna argue that the Western Allies who invaded Iraq bear significant responsibility for the bloodshed that followed? Go ahead, there's a rational, moral and legal case for this. However, what you cannot argue with any credibility is that the US, British and other allied forces carried out mass slaughter of civilians in Iraq. This is simply not what happened. What happened was the removal of a dictator, coupled with hubris and incompetence, led to a nasty civil war* / proxy war waged from Iran.
Whatever you think of Blair's Labour Party or Blair himself or the Iraq invasion, the UK did not carry out mass slaughter of anyone in Iraq. This is a vital qualitative moral and legal difference. It's intellectually lazy at best to conflate the two.
AFZ
*All civil wars are nasty, it's merely a matter of degrees how nasty.
I disagree. What have I missed ?
Or perhaps what you've missed is that the UK continues to supply arms used to slaughter those people, with the UK government rejecting any suggestion of blocking arms sales. Maybe you missed the unsubstantiated dodgy dossier produced by the Israeli government accusing UNWRA staff of aiding criminals, on the basis of which the UK government has stopped funds to the only organisation with any hope of addressing the urgent needs of more than 2 million people who need food, clean water, medicine, somewhere safe to live ... not to forget the needs once the bombs stop falling to rebuild hospitals and schools.
That includes, um, me.
Dafyd Hell Host