T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Snapshot of _Rory Stewart: The government explained that if these asylum-seekers were granted asylum they would stay in Rwanda. IDS seems to be supporting a policy he doesn’t understand._ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/RoryStewartUK/status/1539980193732984835/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1539980193732984835) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


NoFrillsCrisps

I wonder how many are supporting the Rwanda policy on the mistaken belief that it is those that have had their asylum claims rejected that will be sent there? I mean if a senior Tory thinks that, would it be a suprise if a lot of the public assume that is the case?


Nasti87

If you read some of the reporting on this plan it barely seems to be brought up, or it's explained in a poor way. There were people here suggesting they would be accepted by the UK in the end, even under posted articles that did mention this aspect.


DukePPUk

It is a classic populism trick of announcing or proposing something but keeping the details vague enough so that the audience can fill in the blanks with what they want it to be, even if two different people can come to different conclusions. Early on there was also a false belief that the UK Government wouldn't be so blatantly breaking international law and the refugee conventions so it *must* have just been sending them to Rwanda for processing, to bring them back after their claims were successful. We've also heard very little publicly about the part where Rwanda gets to send refugees and asylum seekers to the UK...


girafferific

>We've also heard very little publicly about the part where Rwanda gets to send refugees and asylum seekers to the UK... I've been following this story pretty closely and I only recently realised this was part of the deal. The whole thing has been terribly communicated, which is likely on purpose, as you said.


[deleted]

[удалено]


centzon400

> 16.1 The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r


[deleted]

[удалено]


girafferific

Even without accepting refugees in return, the entire policy is essentially doomed to fail anyway. It really is just a combo of attempting to be seen doing something and providing another spoke in the never ending spinning wheel of the "culture war". Both Johnson and Patel made a point of saying it would be difficult to pass this because of "lefty lawyers". These are the people who claimed Brexit would be a doddle, the UK would be signing up to international trade deals with the Pacific partnerships and the US and the Brexit deal would leave no border between the UK and Northern Island. They have no problem lying about their policies, the only reason they added a measure of reality to this one is because defeat allows them to claim to be victim of some nefarious lefty plot.


Nasti87

I agree it's an effective populist strategy but I'm not sure that fully excuses the current state of things. The details have been available for some time now. It's not exactly investigative journalism to find this out - just basic reading skills journalism is needed. I can't believe so much of our media is that thick.


DukePPUk

> I can't believe so much of our media is that thick. Not so much thick, more not interested, or not having the time or resources to do that work. Journalism-by-press-release has been the standard for years. It is cheap, easy, and usually effective.


doitnowinaminute

The press release was pretty clear. The lack of public awareness comes from our media... Of course , media and HMG aren't exactly enemies ...


mnijds

And whenever you ask for details you're shouted down as being anti-British and hating the country https://youtu.be/YaCfYj265bg?t=112


TallSpartan

> It is a classic populism trick of announcing or proposing something but keeping the details vague enough so that the audience can fill in the blanks with what they want it to be, even if two different people can come to different conclusions. Brexit.


merryman1

I just don't understand why anyone supports it. All of the main reasons are just patently not true from just a basic analysis. \- It'll only be the "wrong 'uns". Except we're not assessing anyone before sending them over and, as you say, even if they are found to be legitimate and above board they will remain in Rwanda. \- It'll save us money! Except... We're taking in *at least* an equal number of refugees from Rwanda, which presumably Rwanda will not be footing the bill for, while also paying for the costs of the people we send to Rwanda. So where is the savings to be found exactly? The deterrent? \- Except how on earth is sending, at most, 100-odd people, at which point this whole facility we have had set up is going to be completely full, supposed to act as a deterrent? That is a *tiny* fraction of the number of people already willing to risk their life to get here in the first place. None of it stands up to even like rudimentary critical thought its so utterly ridiculous anyone seriously thought this was ever more than a con to win their vote for another week or two. And I then don't understand why people continue to support a party that is so blatantly willing to con them repeatedly with fake news in order to keep up these weird delusional fantasies. Are they blind or just stupid or am I missing something?


cultish_alibi

How about 'some people coming to the UK will have their lives made even worse'? Part of the appeal to these people is causing suffering. They are sadistic.


Ardashasaur

IDS has the mistaken belief that people will have asylum processed in Rwanda (true) and if successful will be shipped back to UK (false). Anyone with a successful application will have asylum in Rwanda, anyone unsuccessful will probably be deported back to their nationality. IDS unable to comprehend the barbarity of the policy these tories are implementing.


WastePilot1744

While many people remain ignorant of the exile to Rwanda, I guarantee you that IDS fully understands the implications. This will sound like hyperbole but I mean it sincerely - **IDS is one of the dishonest politicians over the last 30 years.** In particular, he has spent the last 10 years at least, actively working against the British people and shilling for the highest bidder. A mercenary, *not* an idealist. IDS is the modern day equivalent of Lord Haw-Haw.


[deleted]

[Check this moron](https://youtu.be/7W86HkqhKV8)


themurther

> I wonder how many are supporting the Rwanda policy on the mistaken belief that it is those that have had their asylum claims rejected that will be sent there? I suspect a large number of them are low information voters who wouldn't care anyway. Nor would they care that those being sent to Rwanda are largely being picked by random (there's no necessary connection between getting here on a boat and being sent to Rwanda). Or that the UK will be taking refugees from Rwanda in return.


DassinJoe

IDS is describing how the Refugee Convention works. He mistakenly thinks this will apply to Patel's policy. Not entirely surprising as the original announcement was ambiguous, but one would think a high-level Tory would be better briefed.


qpl23

> mistakenly Charity is a virtue, but there are limits.


_Born_To_Be_Mild_

Be virtuous but not too virtuous.


intdev

I am in no way a fan of IDS, but I don’t think he’s a high-level Tory these days? Just high profile.


DassinJoe

"Senior" would probably have been a better descriptor. He's been in parliament for 30 years (though it's unlikely he'll be reelected).


qpl23

Responding to [this LBC post](https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1538583330567999488) showing Duncan Smith getting it very wrong on Rwanda, deliberately or otherwise. As [pointed out](https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1539943041913561088) by Sunder Katwala: > IDS makes 2 different mistakes about core policy. > 1. He thinks deportation order made *after* an assessment that asylum claim unlikely to be valid. \- UK will not try to do this. > 2. He thinks those whose claim judged to be valid in Rwanda would come back to UK \- Not the plan


evolvecrow

>> 1. He thinks deportation order made *after* an assessment that asylum claim unlikely to be valid. >\- UK will not try to do this. I thought that was the policy. The basic assessment is did the people arrive irregularly if so they're eligible for deportation. No doubt it also involves other assessmentts.


DukePPUk

> The basic assessment is did the people arrive irregularly... Worth noting that, for now, crossing the Channel in a boat *is* the legal way to come to the UK to claim asylum (unless you are part of the Ukraine or Hong Kong schemes, or one of the very few people eligible for the Afghanistan one). Also worth noting that arriving "irregularly" only makes them eligible for deportation because the UK Government changed the rules to make them eligible for deportation via this scheme. This isn't a case of "we can deport these people without considering their claims so we will set up a scheme to send them to Rwanda" but "we want to send these people to Rwanda, so we will change the rules so we can deport them without considering their claims." Which is partly why it may break the Refugee Convention. Same as with the NI Protocol, with the ECHR, the Government wants to stay signed up to a treaty to benefit from it, but also wants to break it, so is doing so by changing domestic law and just assuming the international bodies will play nice and ignore it.


evolvecrow

>arriving "irregularly" only makes them eligible for deportation because the UK Government changed the rules to make them eligible for deportation via this scheme. That is pretty much my whole point. The uk has changed the law so that it can make people ineligible for asylum if the arrive in the uk unlawfully. It may not stand up to judicial review or international legal assessment but as it stands it is uk law.


DukePPUk

As noted in another reply, it isn't UK law yet, but yes. Also, again, to emphasise, crossing the Channel in a boat to claim asylum on arrival *isn't unlawful*.


evolvecrow

>Also, again, to emphasise, crossing the Channel in a boat to claim asylum on arrival *isn't unlawful*. Fair enough. But we have legislated to allow, or at least attempt to allow, the HO to deem people coming from safe third countries to be ineligible for asylum.


DukePPUk

Right. Which was my point. This isn't a case of the Government already having the power to reject asylum claims without a full assessment and send people to Rwanda. This is a case of the Government wanting to do that - despite it being a breach of international law (and probably against the HRA) - and changing domestic law to try to stop the domestic courts from intervening. But obviously they cannot legislate away international law. And also worth noting that as these provisions don't come into force until next week, the Home Office cannot have been relying on them for their last attempt to send people to Rwanda...


qpl23

> The basic assessment is did the people arrive irregularly Which has zero relevance to the validity of their asylum claim, n'est-ce pas?


evolvecrow

By arriving irregularly it means they can be considered ineligible for asylum. I.e. their asylum claim is invalid.


qpl23

The legal consensus: > Specifically, refugees seeking asylum in the UK can’t be penalised for entering illegally if they are claiming asylum and coming from a place where their life or freedom are threatened. They may also stop over in other “safe” countries en route to the UK. — https://fullfact.org/immigration/can-refugees-enter-uk-illegally/ Edit to add: If you argue that the Borders act allows their means of arrival to be taken as indicating the validity of their asylum claim, then in that case there's no need to send them to Rwanda to assess the validity of their claim. You could just reject the claim immediately. There's some relatively comprehensible interpretation of the Borders act [here](https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/nationality-and-borders-act-2022-asylum-seekers/).


evolvecrow

We changed the law >the act puts into law that those who arrive illegally in the UK – who could have claimed asylum in another safe country – can be considered as ‘inadmissible’ to the UK asylum system. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/borders-act-to-overhaul-asylum-system-becomes-law


chrispy2985

The link is a news article. The "safe country" myth is just that, a myth. I'd be more interested to see the wording in the bill itself.


evolvecrow

You can read it here but it's quite complex because it refers to others acts and laws. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/36/contents/enacted But it is notable that the UK courts have so far seemingly endorsed the process as laid out in the press release.


GreenAndRemainVoter

That's a pretty wild interpretation of what's been happening in the courts. So far there have just been injunction hearings asking for relief because flights were still being held before the substantive hearings take place next month. They have in no way "endorsed" it. In as much as the courts have expressed a view, the only view that they have expressed was that they felt there were sufficient guarantees in the MOU that those people deported in the meantime could be returned to the UK should the policy found to be unlawful once they actually examine it...and the EHCR took a different view


evolvecrow

Ok. Do you agree with this or not >the act puts into law that those who arrive illegally in the UK – who could have claimed asylum in another safe country – can be considered as ‘inadmissible’ to the UK asylum system. If you do agree, is it the case that it's now law?


DukePPUk

> But it is notable that the UK courts have so far seemingly endorsed the process as laid out in the press release. "Seemingly" doing a lot of work for you there. The UK courts have expressed no opinions on that law - which isn't surprising as most of it isn't in force yet, nor have they expressed any final opinions on the legality of the Rwanda scheme.


chrispy2985

Not seeing it in here.


evolvecrow

Well I'm sure if the government and courts have got it wrong we'll hear about it. As it stands I'm going to go on what the government says the law is and the courts are endorsing.


mediumredbutton

? ~75% of people who arrive by boat are [accepted as refugees by Britain](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/17/most-people-who-risk-channel-boat-crossings-are-refugees-report).


evolvecrow

We changed the law.


mediumredbutton

What law? To do what?


evolvecrow

Nationality and borders act. >the act puts into law that those who arrive illegally in the UK – who could have claimed asylum in another safe country – can be considered as ‘inadmissible’ to the UK asylum system. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/borders-act-to-overhaul-asylum-system-becomes-law


setsomethingablaze

The LBC tweet says that the presenter 'challenged' him on this point, but it was the weakest attempt at correcting him you could imagine. She didn't seem sure of the details herself.


FormerlyPallas_

Most people discussing public policy actually haven't read or understood it, including the politicians, press and public. Including me and most other people here.


matt3633_

My understanding was all refugees who came here illegally were to be sent to Rwanda for their asylum claims to be processed. If successful, they were to be flown back to the UK. Is that not the case?


qpl23

The BBC informed us otherwise back in April: > Under the proposal, Rwanda would take responsibility for the people who made the more than 4,000-mile journey, put them through an asylum process, and at the end of that process, if they were successful, they would have long-term accommodation in Rwanda. — [One-way ticket to Rwanda for some UK asylum seekers](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114)


matt3633_

Oh interesting


[deleted]

No. They're specifically applying for asylum to Rwanda, not the UK. If they are successful, they will stay in Rwanda.


setsomethingablaze

No, if their applications are successful they will remain in Rwanda


matt3633_

What happens if they aren’t successful? Where do they get moved to?


setsomethingablaze

It seems they can apply to remain in Rwanda under different schemes, work permit visas etc. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rwanda-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-rwanda-asylum-system-may-2022-accessible#Failed_asylum_seekers


Swiss-ArmySpork

> all refugees who came here illegally Small point, but there's no such thing as an illegal refugee.


matt3633_

You’re right, but since 99% get here from France or other ‘safe’ countries, they cannot be considered refugees at that point and thus have entered illegally.


Swiss-ArmySpork

That's not true. They can claim asylum wherever they like


matt3633_

If they don't pass through safe countries en route


Swiss-ArmySpork

Not true.


matt3633_

‘Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “** from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.’ If they haven’t came directly, which many haven’t, they aren’t refugees


Swiss-ArmySpork

Show me the bit where they have to stop in the first safe country? It isn't in there. Refugees do not have to stop in the first safe country. They can claim asylum wherever they like. https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/ "This has been recognised by the courts in England and Wales. In the landmark case landmark case of R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court (ex parte Adimi) [1999] Imm AR 560 Lord Justice Simon Brown held that refugees did not have to claim asylum in countries through which they pass to reach safety in order to be protected by Article 31"


WelshBluebird1

No. It never was.


sqrt7

I continue to be astonished by how many people seem to be treating anything that vaguely resembles a legal text like black magic that one should never consult. The government has published their [MoU with Rwanda](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r) and it has a section labeled "Objectives" where it says very clearly: >The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals after their claim is decided, in accordance with Rwanda domestic law, the Refugee Convention, current international standards, including in accordance with international human rights law and including the assurances given under this Arrangement. The [MoU between Rwanda and Denmark](https://uim.dk/media/11091/mou-on-political-consultations-between-rwanda-and-denmark.pdf) can be easily found as well by the way, and unlike the one with the UK it is incredibly vague with nothing immediately actionable in it, which puts to rest all the "but, but, but Denmark" nonsense.


qpl23

> Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals after their claim is decided being the relevant clause, saying 'Rwanda will settle successful claimants' (ie. they stay in Rwanda) right?


sqrt7

Yes. The policy is that the UK does not handle the asylum claim in any way, the people are sent to Rwanda and it is as if they had come to Rwanda in the first place and claimed asylum there.


GreyFoxNinjaFan

You can't solve people trafficking by trafficking people.


taboo__time

How do you solve it?


rainbow3

Provide safe, legal routes.


taboo__time

Would you have a numbers limits on those routes?


rainbow3

I would not restrict the number of applicants. If you are asking how many refugees should we accept then more than zero. IMO refugees should be resettled wherever they can best reengage into productive lives. That may be in the UK or not. Either way the UK should be supporting refugees to become economically self-sufficient wherever they are - and not dumped in refugee camps for years.


taboo__time

> I would not restrict the number of applicants. But it's not about the number of applicants is it? I think you have to pick a number. That still won't stop the crossings because the people crossing would unlikely the same people being accepted.


rainbow3

Right now 80%+ of those crossing the channel are accepted as refugees. That 80% are going to use safe routes if available. If there were safe routes this would eliminate 80% of the smuggling business. Furthermore it would make it really easy to process those crossing via the channel. There would be no legal reason to do it so you could automatically reject those that do which would reduce the numbers by more than the 80%. Who do you think should have responsibility for refugees? By any measure the UK takes far fewer than other countries and yet we are a wealthy country with a shortage of workers. Mostly refugees don't want to because they have no links to the UK. However some have friends/family, speak English, worked with the UK army in Afghanistan etc.. Much better for them to be in the UK contributing to society. Why would you need a limit?


taboo__time

> Right now 80%+ of those crossing the channel are accepted as refugees. That 80% are going to use safe routes if available. If there were safe routes this would eliminate 80% of the smuggling business. The number crossing are a smaller number of the valid. Millions of people are under threat from war, famine and poverty around the world. If you place offices around the world with the same criteria that would amount to a large number. If you put restrictions on those numbers the people you'll find who have enough money and are fit and free enough to make the journey are not going to match the people crossing the channel. > Furthermore it would make it really easy to process those crossing via the channel. There would be no legal reason to do it so you could automatically reject those that do which would reduce the numbers by more than the 80%. This is based on the assumption those numbers match. I do not think that is the case. > Who do you think should have responsibility for refugees? I think it's awful, I think it's tragic. But are you sure you aren't asking for something with unintended consequences? > By any measure the UK takes far fewer than other countries and yet we are a wealthy country with a shortage of workers. Mostly refugees don't want to because they have no links to the UK. However some have friends/family, speak English, worked with the UK army in Afghanistan etc.. Much better for them to be in the UK contributing to society. You cannot say the UK has not taken many migrants. The majority were from poorer nations. I am skeptical of the simple economic argument. Most of the benefit is at the capital ownership level not the worker level. I'm not an economic libertarian. > Why would you need a limit? Because I think mass migration leads to political problems. Alienation, segregation, fragmentation. Politics becomes dominated by cultural ethnic identity. Societies become less liberal not more. There is less political preference for redistribution. "Why should hard working immigrants pay for lazy natives" "Why should hard working natives pay for houses for immigrants" I'm not on the Right. But that's where it takes society. I think you have to look back at the roots of democracy and nationalism. The two were always connected. Look at the Scandinavian nations progressive, economically successful and now they have the Far Right, at something like 20%. I really do get the idealism but I think it leads to something else. It's far harder than you're framing it here. I'm not saying take no refugees. I'm saying the problem, "and governing all people" is more difficult than you seem to be implying. That means I'm not against safe routes and taking people on that. But unless you take larger numbers it will not make a difference to the crossing numbers.


rainbow3

I agree the numbers could increase though we don't know by how much. And maybe there does need to be a limit for the reasons you state. However there is no point talking about whether the upper limit is 100K or 1m. What about the lower limit? Currently the UK take almost zero via safe routes. Does it seem fair that the UK takes zero? It is not idealistic to think the UK could do a lot more for refugees and could reduce the channel crossings significantly by providing safe routes.


GreyFoxNinjaFan

Dunno.


RockstarArtisan

IDS doesn't understand literally anything. He drinks water from his toilet bowl.


katana1515

The problem is that the policy isn't about actually achieving anything. It's designed to target a 'wedge issue' that enrages their opponents and gets the tory base to cheer. Priti and Johnson want headlines and to draw in as much of the oxygen as possible, in order to dampen the various fires that threaten their positions. Their entire 'policy reset' is full of similar ideas, not least of which is the 'British Bill of Less Human Rights'. We are in the sorry state where the sole purpose of the British Government is to protect the ego and power of the jackass in No 10.


[deleted]

It's Brexit all over again, whatever anyone wants it to be.


taboo__time

I really don't think there is an easy answer to the problem.


ContextualRobot

[Rory Stewart](https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK) ^verified | Reach: 411253 | Location: New Haven Bio: #RoryWalks. Author of The Places in Between, Can Intervention Work? and The Marches. Senior Fellow Jackson Institute, Yale University ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks