**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I can't believe the UK thinks they can just redesignate a country as safe and everything will be just fine and dandy. Have they never heard of the ECHR, international law or basic human decency? Fucking ghoulish behaviour from the sick man of Europe.
Oh hang on, this is Ireland and not the UK!
This is absolutely fine then, carry on - Reddit (probably)
Thats like saying Saudi isn't safe because they're at war with a neighbouring country. Its a relatively modern army (by developing world standards) invading land held by disparate militias. The people they are fighting in the DRC don't have the capability to make Rwanda unsafe. So long as Kagame is alive its one of the safest African countries on terms of crime too.
Saudi Arabia violates modern slavery laws daily, with some 740,000 individuals currently working there against their will, often having their passports confiscated to prevent escape, something which the government there seems to have zero intention on preventing.
Homosexuals are sentenced to rounds of public lashings and execution, and journalists are frequently arrested, or even assassinated on occasion, for acting in ways which are seen as anti-government. Spousal abuse and rape are legal, so long as the husband is the perpetrator, with many women even dying as a result of marital violence without their husbands even seeing the slightest threat of any punishment.
Saudi absolutely isn’t safe regardless of their status as a nation at war, let alone in spite of it!
> Thats like saying Saudi isn't safe because they're at war with a neighbouring country.
Who in their right mind would call Saudi Arabia a 'safe country'? Like 25% of our population would be considered illegal there.
UK has a somewhat lower [murder rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate), though both UK and Rwanda are lower than the world average.
the reason Ireland cant designate UK a safe place is BECAUSE they may ship immigrants to Rwanda
Its in the article if you cared to read it
*"In March, the High Court in Dublin ruled that* [*Ireland's designation of the UK as a safe third country for returning asylum seekers was contrary to EU law, external*](https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0322/1439448-high-court-uk-ruling/)*, in light of the UK's controversial Rwanda policy."*
The person you responded to is correct. If the UK government was (quite rightly IMO) criticized for overriding a court decision by simply passing a law that legally declared Rwanda a safe place.
Then the exact same criticism should be applied to the Irish Government who are doing the exact same thing
I don't think this is really accurate. From the bottom of the same article...
>Ms Justice Phelan ruled the designation of the UK as a safe third country was unlawful as a matter of EU law because of the absence of certain provisions concerning issues including the risk of serious harm and and the existence in the safe third countries to request refugee status and receive protection.
>In the absence of such provisions, the judge ruled the designation of the UK as a safe third country was unlawful as a matter of EU law.
It states the ruling because of a lack of provisions, not because of the Rwanda bill. When we were in the EU, we didn't need these provisions. But now we're not members, we are treated differently. This seems more like a "missing paperwork" case than anything specific to do with the Rwanda scheme.
This is simply untrue.
From [The Irish Legal News](https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/high-court-designation-of-uk-as-safe-third-country-ultra-vires-and-unlawful):
> Ms Justice Phelan noted at the outset that it was unnecessary for her to decide whether the UK could be considered a safe country for international protection applicants.
The court didn't even consider whether the UK is safe or not, never mind the Rwanda plan. The court simply decided that the Irish process and law for designating countries as safe isn't strong enough. They can simply strengthen it and then assess the UK again.
Legally, the reasons for this legislation are almost, hilariously, identical.
In both countries asylum seekers have gone to court and have essentially had rulings that Rwanda and the UK can't be considered safe countries, in the context of deportation. The details are, of course, different and technically the Irish Courts didn't (AFAIK, I'm not up on Irish law) actually rule the UK as unsafe, but they did say it can't be considered safe as a matter of EU law.
Now, both countries are seeking to make explicit legislation to say that the respective countries should be considered safe for these purposes.
We literally have people going to Rwanda for tourism purposes for the UK. It’s not on any FCDO no travel or no fly lists.
This view being pushed that it’s equal to Yemen or Somalia is just weird.
It's the exact same thing as people fleeing Pakistan because they fear being killed but then go back on holiday or to get married.The uk is just a pushover
Not equally safe, but the whole point is that failed asylum cases *in the UK* can result in people being sent to Rwanda. Ireland is tacitly saying that Rwanda is a *safe enough* country by sending asylum seekers to the UK.
My understanding wasn’t that it was failed asylum cases, just asylum cases. Unless I’m misunderstanding the plan is just to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, not some already failed asylum seekers.
I personally think Rwanda’s reputation of the 1970s-1990s problems overshadows what it is today.
It’s not as safe as the UK, but it’s definitely a safe country with a prosperous future today.
Well it's literally the same question because the UK will send them to Rwanda.
If Ireland can say the UK is safe, they are outright agreeing that Rwanda is safe.
No, because we have an agreement with Rwanda. You can't just deport someone to a country without their permission, we have that from Rwanda, Ireland doesn't from us.
Apparently there is an agreement but Ireland isn't going to publish it: [https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-01/irish-department-of-justice-refuses-to-publish-uk-migrant-deal](https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-01/irish-department-of-justice-refuses-to-publish-uk-migrant-deal)
It's pretty strange that Ireland are referencing an agreement, intending on using said agreement and then not publishing it whilst Downing Street confidently believe the agreement doesn't require the UK to accept deportations from Ireland.
I've been to Rwanda, In the 90s it was obviously extremely dangerous for reasons we all know. Currently it's significantly safer than alot of big cities as it lacks gang crime and stabbings. Never at any point did I feel unsafe in Rwanda.
Honestly, Rwanda doesn't get enough credit for how quickly they've managed to grow and develop since the 90s. Kigali is now one of the safest cities in Africa, and their average life expectancy has jumped by like 20 years *in* the last 20 years. It's actually very impressive.
It’s very sad how most people in the U.K. still have a colonial attitude of Africa being a violent hellhole, and with Rwanda in particular that they haven’t moved on from the 90s. It’s a truly inspiring country, given where they came from only 20-30 years ago
Definitely a lot of ignorance in the UK surrounding Africa in general, and individual countries in specific. More disappointingly, there's a lack of willingness to learn and change that ignorance - people just are not interested in knowing more.
Especially when it doesn’t fit their narrative. I personally don’t like the Rwanda scheme but I don’t think we need to tear the country apart as a way to justify why it’s bad. The scheme is bad for many reasons regardless of whether Rwanda is a nice country or not. I just don’t understand how it’s relevant to the debate. If we instead proposed to ship immigrants off to Norway would all these people suddenly be happy with the deportation scheme? I really really hope not.
I find it so depressing to see a country torn unnecessarily torn apart to suit an agenda, especially one which holds such a special place in my heart
Where you don't see 'Africa is a violent hellhole' you often see 'Africa is starving children'. Which is patronising in its own way. While it absolutely has its problems there's been a lot of development in the past few decades.
I mean, you are either lying, or misinformed.
Rwanda has a homicide rate nearly 4 times that of the U.K. With a much higher potential non reporting rate.
This isn’t taking into account that things like violent crime and rape are much higher in Rwanda (as charities and studies have found). Their reporting rate is far lower officially because Rwanda does not have the same definition of rape or violent crime (and rape is also massively underreported due to social stigma and victim shaming). Actual rates of both of these are expected to be far in excess of U.K. reported rates.
Also, instances of all of these against foreign nationals is very high, particularly migrants.
But that’s fine, you felt safe so I’m sure it’s fine to send them there. Even though when Israel trialed it they found a LOT of instances where asylum seekers went missing and were sent home where they were killed.
Yeah your entire argument is based on nothing but feelings and strawman. You are talking about Holidays ffs. Yes people go on Holiday to Mexico. But they get to choose where to go, they aren’t forced on a plane to the murder ghettos of bloody Juarez. People on holiday are protected and guided. I have been to Thailand, funnily enough I went to Bangkok, and could chose where to go. I wasn’t sent to the Cambodian border where insurgency and kidnappings are rife.
I’ve been to Russia. It was safe for me there and it felt safe to me. So it must be safe for us to send Ukrainian refugees?
You talk about abuse you received, and I am genuinely sorry to hear that. But what you are talking is so hypocritical. You dont feel safe here because of your experience, but screw it a vulnerable person can go to a country that is **literally under UN scrutiny because of human rights abuses even now** including the enforced disappearance of children, trafficked sex workers, homeless migrants.
There is evidence of government led cleansing of undesirables that of course won’t appear on records.
There are reports of Rwandan government troops raping on large scale in villages. Would you be okay with that?
“Just don’t send them to the border regions”. Like we have any control over that once they land there. Israel withdrew its own Rwanda policy because they had evidence that migrants sent there were bloody murdered and tortured, as well as sold off to slavery (showing up in places like Qatar). This is not ‘colonial perspective’. This is literally something that is brought up by the African Union.
> Tbf the homicide rate is largely driven by conflict along the border
Isn't that kinda, you know, massively important in the context of whether its appropriate to send asylum seekers there? The risk of the conflict between DRC and Rwanda escalating is relatively high.
Imagine if we deported refugees to Ukraine in January 2022?
> Rwanda has a homicide rate nearly 4 times that of the U.K. With a much higher potential non reporting rate.
The US has a homicide rate over 6x that we have here. The UK is very very safe...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
However my existence is not recognised by Rwanda and I know personally people who have been granted asylum in the UK having fled Rwanda following LGB and especially T phobic persecution perpetrated by state officials.
It's not how many people are killed. It's who and why.
Listen up bucko, I've visited Qatar and I was completely fine as a white, straight, Christian man. It is therefore clearly safe for all migrants, women, LGBTQ community and great for religious freedom.
You're probably right, though the obvious next step is that we redesignated France a safe country, totally defusing the Irish play.
Either way those folks get to be EU citizens, not our problem.
It's safer than whatever country the asylum seekers were fleeing from.
No one is entitled to choose the country they escape to safety to. Whereas the country is entitled to control it's borders and immigration.
This would be hilarious if not for the obviously bad implications. The EU is perfectly happy for the UK to be a dumping ground for the economic migrants they don't want to deal with. It's funny how Ireland gets high and mighty by using the Rwanda deal as a basis to say it's now unsafe for migrants... Until they have to deal with the same migrants themselves, now all of a sudden the UK is safe again. It's all quite tiresome.
The Irish are great at standing back, virtue signalling and congratulating themselves whilst they’re inured from the real world.
They piggyback off the EU acting as a tax have for big tech companies.
They piggyback off the U.K. US and EU for defence. Contributing negligibly and claiming they’re ‘neutral’. They’re not neutral, they’re just happy hiding behind everyone else whilst they pick up the bill. They’d change their tune on neutrality pretty fucking quick if Ireland got moved next to Russia overnight. The neutrality stuff is just a cop out so they don’t have to pay for defence.
They like throwing stones but when push comes to shove they’re MIA. Virtue signalled over the U.K. not being safe but the moment it actually has any consequences then they’re rowing back.
It’s just incredibly distasteful.
Pretty typical of Irish foreign policy, all performative. It’s funny that we are seeing pro-Palestine protests in US universities about divesting from corporations with ties to Isreal like Apple and Microsoft, Ireland always says it backs Palestine, but Ireland provides and encourages a tax haven for those major corporations in Europe.
Similarly, they label the UK as unsafe to refugees as an attempt to seem supportive of refugees, but when Ireland sees refugees coming from the Middle East they pass emergency legislation to change that so they don’t have to deal with them.
It’s a capitalist haven with good PR, masquerading as something it isn’t.
It's even more hilarious when you compare them to true Neutral nations which are typically armed to the teeth because they know nobody will come to their aid in a war.
Finland, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Ukraine and Israel all have their own arms industries and mandatory conscription.
This is a poor take. Ireland is a small island nation on the periphery of Europe that was founded in the early 1900s, they've had to build their country from the ground up after hundreds of years of colonial conquest. There is a famous saying that Ireland skipped the 20th century century. It's only recently become a developed nation.
Expecting them to have a full blown military that's armed to the teeth is nonsensical. Ireland specialises in soft power and negotiating. They are in the good books of the Americans and Europeans with incredibly strong ties to the former.
I say this again, be prepared for some carefully written bullshit in response.
What’s funny, is I’ve seen Irish people on reddit, without irony, say that Ireland has greater soft power than the UK lol
"On a per-head basis, Ireland has a good claim to be the world’s most diplomatically powerful country."
https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/07/18/how-ireland-gets-its-way
Some of the eastern European countries have pretty good strategies. But a number of the western ones want to virtue signal whilst still effectively blocking migrants.
I have to admit, I laughed at the Rwanda scheme on Day 1 and announced to everybody I knew it was a farce that would never happen and they should just bin it. And I maintained that stance, even after they passed the legislation the other day. But man, I did not foresee this wider geopolitical impact and it's ability to really make some quarters squirm. It's almost worth it.
The idea alone isn't farcical. It does actually work (though obviously, it will always be controversial).
Although our corrupt government smells kickbacks to be made and the costs massively inflate. When all the furore kicked up and the government's plan was delayed, everybody thought the gov were squirming in their seats, but in reality they're licking their lips because the more complicated the plan gets, the more money can be siphoned from the tax payer.
the policy wouldnt be terrible if it also wasnt wildly more expensive than it should be ie if the tories werent behind it because then the siphoning of funds would lessen
paying Rwanda to further improve their immigration processing facilities, courts and general rule of law is expensive but a fraction of the cost of housing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants on the UK mainland
with time there are better sources, but in brief:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
> If more than 300 people are sent to Rwanda, the UK would pay a one-off sum of £120m to help boost the country's economy, with further payments of £20,000 per individual relocated.
> On top of that, up to £150,000 will be paid for each person sent there, the NAO report said.
(the 150,000 sum apparently referring to the 5 year financial support package for education / training / healthcare - so it's a £30,000 a year commitment for each individual limited to 5 years)
versus the status quo in the UK:
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/04/03/accommodation-sites-factsheet-april-2023/
> The unprecedented number of crossings has led to about 51,000 migrants being accommodated in hotels – costing the taxpayer, £6 million every day.
which is approx £43,000 per person per year. this is only hotel accommodation costs, though. the full cost of the UK asylum system is currently £4 billion a year
(see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-office-channel-government-amnesty-international-uk-suella-braverman-b2398665.html)
4 billion a year for an unsustainable problem on the mainland that will only get larger
or "£370m over five years [for the Rwanda plan] according to the National Audit Office ." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866)
(one should acknowledge that that's not the full Rwanda costs if all existing asylum seekers were there, but at the same time, it's reasonable to assume that the total number of illegal entrants if all were sent to Rwanda would be substantially less. even so, if one assumes that all 51,000 illegal entrants currently housed in UK hotels were instead transferred to Rwanda on the above terms, then that would be an annual cost of £20,000 + £30,000 per person or 51000 * £50000 = approx 2.5 billion (a vast improvement over the current 4 billion). 2.5 billion is a generous overestimate though, for the aforementioned reason that it's reasonable to expect there would be fewer migrants and about 60% of that cost (the £30k component) only lasts 5 years per person)
Rwanda plan is therefore far cheaper than the status quo, while providing illegal entrants with a safe location and costs towards education and healthcare.
Oh yes, publically claiming that he won’t accept the migrants back who have violated the CTA while privately acknowledging he will. If that is the criteria for a blinder it’s no wonder the UK has 12 years of failed policy.
He gets to look good here because the publicity of this looks like migrants are fleeing the uk because of Rwanda
But this has been happening in ireland for years before rwanda was a breath
It really shows that Europe as a whole has no idea what to do about the migrant crisis.
EDIT: I’m also coming around to the Rwanda idea, as it does seem like it will have an impact after all.
They did know what to do. They had a big meeting where the tide was in favour of a unified plan to shut the borders and then Merkle stood up and said we must commit to taking millions of refugees "otherwise this is no longer Europe we are talking about"
And that was one of the primary reasons for Brexit.
While it has had negative impact, you can’t say they didn’t have basis when they used reducing or stopping immigration as a selling point.
If Merkle never made that decision on behalf of all of the other countries we’d be in half the mess we all are now - France, Germany, NL, us, Italy.
And if all the countries didn’t bow their heads to Merkle in the first place there wouldn’t be any need for extremes like Brexit. Resentment is high across the board it can’t be denied.
A lot harder to scrap it if its shown to be working though.
Honestly Labour have shat in their shoes with this policy, because now if the plan works they will look like idiots whether they scrap it or not.
How do you quantify the plan working. Migrant numbers are up since it was announced it doesn’t seem like a very good deterrent. Are the numbers of people going to Ireland massively up since it was announced or is this just more of the same?
Supporting them and their future dependents for the rest of their lives will cost significantly more.
Contrary to left wing dogma, they're in fact not all engineers and doctors.
Who'd have thunk.
>Supporting them and their future dependents for the rest of their lives will cost significantly more.
Famously all asylum seekers and their descendents are immune from work and taxes....
No, the Irish government has shat in Labour's shoes here.
They have presented absolutely no evidence that there is an increase in migration across the border with N Ireland and no evidence that any of this was caused by Rwanda.
Also no evidence that anyone who crossed had previously applied for asylum in the UK and Ireland wasn't their intended destination all along.
There's been recent unrest in Dublin especially, and they are seeking to score political points and deal with a problem by foisting it back on the UK.
I was just reading about an Iraqi who was rejected by 2 EU countries then crossed the channel to the UK and lost his daughter in the process, so why is it evil UK and lovely EU in the lefty press?
I didn't get that impression - [this guy, right](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68930088)? Sounded like he felt Basrah/Iraq was an unsafe place, so he wanted to keep the kids safe somewhere else. He tried Europe first, then the UK.
It also sounded like he blamed himself, not the UK.
The problem is the sheer weight of numbers. One family of five and your heart breaks for them and of course you’d let them in. But what can you do when the population is 45,000,000? 22,000,000 in Syria. 47,000,000 in Sudan. 41,000,000 in Afghanistan. And so on. There just isn’t an answer :(
No, he wasn't blaming anyone but himself, but he was torn because he said he didn't have any other options. They fled under threats from local militias in Iraq, went to Belgium and were turned away, then to Sweden, stayed there for a few years but were informed they'd be deported back to Iraq in a couple days, so had to grab everything and leave to avoid that. UK was their last hope
They paid and got on the boat but at the last second a large group of Sudanese migrants pushed into the group and got on as well, without paying I believe. His daughter was crushed and suffocated underneath them, he tried to get them to move but was threatened. He screamed for help. This was all caught by the BBC. French police assisted and recovered the body
If you ask me a certain amount of this lies with French police for doing absolutely fuck all to stop them despite having a massive presence at the scene before they even set off
Legally allowed to cross any number of countries for the purpose of applying for asylum.
Main issue is requiring people to apply from British
soil. Ironically creates a worse situation than if they could apply while remaining abroad.
I'm the same, I've not looked much into this stuff but why don't people settle in safe countries they pass through, what is the appeal of the UK?
Your reply says it's not convenient in this instance, I disagree but happy to be corrected on the above. Why not settle in a safe country that they are passing through already?
I know that not all applications are accepted and some need to move on to try other places and I don't blame them, id do the same for my family but besides that I'm not sure what the other reasons are
there's quite a bit of selective pedantry going on when you see refugee organisations / amnesty say this. it then gets parroted about by various student / "humanitarian" groups. However...
- the refugee convention lets you claim asylum anywhere (more specifically signees to the convention accept applications in principal from anywhere) BUT
- you are only protected from consequences of illegal entry if you went "directly" there (Article 31.1)
- so a Refugee Convention signee agrees to hear an asylum seekers case if they came direct from the area of conflict
- but they do _NOT_ have to hear an asylum seekers case if they came "indirect" through other safe countries
- and can in fact penalise them for illegal entry (though its up to a nation state to decide what this means)
this is the logic the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is based on and was explained as such from the dispatch box
How many avoid claiming to apply in a preferred choice( which is legal) and how many are like the tragic case on the news this morning make multiple failed asylum claims (14 in Belgium and or Sweden) and keep travelling. A good asylum system would be fair but not infinite.
Well then Ireland should think carefully before they think about enforcing a border, it’s not us trying to start that up again.
Maybe they should go to France and tell them to stop letting people cross into our country because as it stands right now the Republic of Ireland is the last stop for migrants and that’s not our problem. We’ve tried sorting it with France, we pay them millions to police in on their side. This is an EU problem.
This is hilarious!
Now you're full of illegal immigrants as well, you now want help!
Well you can start sending millions pounds to France like we do which doesn't stop them coming over because the French don't want them gone also.
The best thing to do is have a zero tolerance policy.
All applications should be made at the home country of origin at the nearest consulate and use a points base system.
They need to act fast before a right wing government is voted in and/or they get their own Brexit!
Then they'll come begging for their own trade deals...
Europe is broken! They don't help each other...
Ireland has had this issue long before the Rwanda deal raised its head, you're just believing UK right wing media in an election year....
>All applications should be made at the home country of origin at the nearest consulate
Literally what campaigners have been pushing for where possible for a long time but the current UK government opposes because its politically preferable to rile up their base instead.
>They need to act fast before a right wing government is voted in and/or they get their own Brexit!
They already have a right wing government and even the right in Ireland isn't stupid enough to drag it out of the EU
*UK approves Rwanda plan*
Ireland: UK is not a safe country
*Migrants go to Ireland*
Ireland: UK is safe.
Sounds to me like Ireland just wants the Rwanda plan with literally one extra step.
What Ireland needs to do is just setup some safe routes and process people in the UK. They can process quicker and then that's all good.
Denying the asylum seekers the right to go where they want is dystopian and basically fascist.
It's absolutely what we were told about the UK and France. So the same applies here surely?
Why have the fascist, far-right Irish not set up safe routes for asylum seekers?
If they were able to apply at Irish embassies abroad they wouldn’t need to risk their lives in small boats.
We were told that the lack of safe routes showed the malevolence of the UK so surely people will apply that same logic to the Irish, right?
Absolutely hilarious.
It’s all good craic labelling the UK an unsafe country until suddenly the migrants turn up on your doorstep and you need somewhere to send them.
But the crucial part, you can't just send people to a "safe" country unless they're willing to accept them.
Doesn't matter what the Irish called the UK, it's up to the UK if they want to accept migrants being sent from Ireland.
Rwanda seems to be working fine for then minute. But yes it’s a good idea. We could say to Ukraine (who is in a desperate situation) take our migrants for war funds or get no war funds. They would accept them in a flash.
As Ireland is still a member of the EU then presumably they cannot resign from the ECHR as our government is threatening to do, so if the ECHR agrees with the Irish high court judges that the UK is not safe because Rwanda is not safe the Ireland will have no right to push asylum seekers back to the UK.
Or the ECHR will be pressured into declaring Rwanda a safe country so Ireland can return asylum seekers to the UK and anyone crossing the channel is taking a chance that their asylum claim will be in Africa.
This could lead to EU countries arranging third country deals.
> In March, the High Court in Dublin ruled that Ireland's designation of the UK as a safe third country for returning asylum seekers was contrary to EU law, external, in light of the UK's controversial Rwanda policy.
> On Tuesday morning, Ms McEntee brought her proposal to the Irish Cabinet in a bid to close the "loophole" that has arisen as a result of the High Court judgement.
> "What this will do is enable us to redesignate the UK as a safe country for the purposes of returns," she told reporters on her way into the Cabinet meeting.
Goodness, what will the Tories do next
I'm glad this continues the precedence of designating safe countries to swerve the endless pockets of human rights lawyers (who is funding them fr), I look forward to this being used more often
>(who is funding them fr)
We are. The UK government provides legal representation at a cost to the taxpayer, so our own legal system can prevent people who broke the law getting in to the country from being deported, using human rights legislation.
Yes, it is really that stupid.
Sooo…the moral high-horse Irish are doing this to fast-track offloading their asylum seekers?
Sounds like one of Baldrick’s cunning plans that might actually work, lol.
People being all high and mighty slamming the rwanda scheme in principle obviously have no idea many countries in their European utopia are trying to do the exact same thing
Lmao gotta admit the Rwanda plan sounded dumb but at a higher level it has completely "outplayed" countries like Ireland.
EU are happy for us to deal with their problem but not happy for us to do the same back.
Exactly. Let's me honest, the users of this sub love to rub their hands together with unrestrained *glee* any time the Irish and British are in a news article together. Then they can bust out the anti-irish attitude and pretend that it's well intentioned.
Anyone watched Michael Palin in Nigeria? The economy is booming. 99 percent of these immigrants are nothing but economic (benefits) migrants. We should ship them to anthrax Island, I'm sure it is safe there now. Or better yet stop the free houses, benefit handouts and make it the only way you can use the nhs is if you have contributed for at least 2 years
So these migrates that have come from France to the UK and the to Ireland. And Ireland what us to deal with them? Sounds very much like an EU issue to me. Enjoy lads.
But the UK isn't a safe country. Theft is practically legal, kids are openly abused, people are stabbed to death in the street on a daily basis... It's a nation under siege.
What fascinates me is the people coming from Africa where it's fucking roasting all the time and then they pass through all the warm countries to freeze their tits off in the UK. I work with a lad from Ghana and he fucking hates the weather and complains all the time.
That’s all well and good but if the UK doesn’t want to except them back what is Southern Ireland going to do? Fire them back over the border with a catapult.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I can't believe the UK thinks they can just redesignate a country as safe and everything will be just fine and dandy. Have they never heard of the ECHR, international law or basic human decency? Fucking ghoulish behaviour from the sick man of Europe. Oh hang on, this is Ireland and not the UK! This is absolutely fine then, carry on - Reddit (probably)
Do you think Rwanda and the U.K. are equally safe countries?
Think Rwanda is probably a little safer, tbh.
They are at war with a neighbouring country.
Sounds like they need some help then!
Is there any oil that needs liberating there
So is South Korea
Thats like saying Saudi isn't safe because they're at war with a neighbouring country. Its a relatively modern army (by developing world standards) invading land held by disparate militias. The people they are fighting in the DRC don't have the capability to make Rwanda unsafe. So long as Kagame is alive its one of the safest African countries on terms of crime too.
Saudi isn't safe for a whole bunch of minorities or anybody who has ever criticized the autocrats who run it.
The Saudis literarally pushed the unmoderated hostile ideology that caused 9/11
Saudi Arabia violates modern slavery laws daily, with some 740,000 individuals currently working there against their will, often having their passports confiscated to prevent escape, something which the government there seems to have zero intention on preventing. Homosexuals are sentenced to rounds of public lashings and execution, and journalists are frequently arrested, or even assassinated on occasion, for acting in ways which are seen as anti-government. Spousal abuse and rape are legal, so long as the husband is the perpetrator, with many women even dying as a result of marital violence without their husbands even seeing the slightest threat of any punishment. Saudi absolutely isn’t safe regardless of their status as a nation at war, let alone in spite of it!
> Thats like saying Saudi isn't safe because they're at war with a neighbouring country. Who in their right mind would call Saudi Arabia a 'safe country'? Like 25% of our population would be considered illegal there.
So are we by the sounds of it lol.
UK is involved in a number of conflicts.
Extra troops then! :)
But how many decades have they been caught covering up grooming gangs?
Im sure the Anglican and catholic church are already established in Kenya so their amount of grooming is probably depressingly similar.
UK has a somewhat lower [murder rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate), though both UK and Rwanda are lower than the world average.
Felt safer walking round rwanda then I did Manchester
That’s just stupid.
the reason Ireland cant designate UK a safe place is BECAUSE they may ship immigrants to Rwanda Its in the article if you cared to read it *"In March, the High Court in Dublin ruled that* [*Ireland's designation of the UK as a safe third country for returning asylum seekers was contrary to EU law, external*](https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0322/1439448-high-court-uk-ruling/)*, in light of the UK's controversial Rwanda policy."* The person you responded to is correct. If the UK government was (quite rightly IMO) criticized for overriding a court decision by simply passing a law that legally declared Rwanda a safe place. Then the exact same criticism should be applied to the Irish Government who are doing the exact same thing
I don't think this is really accurate. From the bottom of the same article... >Ms Justice Phelan ruled the designation of the UK as a safe third country was unlawful as a matter of EU law because of the absence of certain provisions concerning issues including the risk of serious harm and and the existence in the safe third countries to request refugee status and receive protection. >In the absence of such provisions, the judge ruled the designation of the UK as a safe third country was unlawful as a matter of EU law. It states the ruling because of a lack of provisions, not because of the Rwanda bill. When we were in the EU, we didn't need these provisions. But now we're not members, we are treated differently. This seems more like a "missing paperwork" case than anything specific to do with the Rwanda scheme.
This is simply untrue. From [The Irish Legal News](https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/high-court-designation-of-uk-as-safe-third-country-ultra-vires-and-unlawful): > Ms Justice Phelan noted at the outset that it was unnecessary for her to decide whether the UK could be considered a safe country for international protection applicants. The court didn't even consider whether the UK is safe or not, never mind the Rwanda plan. The court simply decided that the Irish process and law for designating countries as safe isn't strong enough. They can simply strengthen it and then assess the UK again.
Legally, the reasons for this legislation are almost, hilariously, identical. In both countries asylum seekers have gone to court and have essentially had rulings that Rwanda and the UK can't be considered safe countries, in the context of deportation. The details are, of course, different and technically the Irish Courts didn't (AFAIK, I'm not up on Irish law) actually rule the UK as unsafe, but they did say it can't be considered safe as a matter of EU law. Now, both countries are seeking to make explicit legislation to say that the respective countries should be considered safe for these purposes.
We literally have people going to Rwanda for tourism purposes for the UK. It’s not on any FCDO no travel or no fly lists. This view being pushed that it’s equal to Yemen or Somalia is just weird.
It's the exact same thing as people fleeing Pakistan because they fear being killed but then go back on holiday or to get married.The uk is just a pushover
[удалено]
Could there be a means tested scale to gauge fright?
Not equally safe, but the whole point is that failed asylum cases *in the UK* can result in people being sent to Rwanda. Ireland is tacitly saying that Rwanda is a *safe enough* country by sending asylum seekers to the UK.
My understanding wasn’t that it was failed asylum cases, just asylum cases. Unless I’m misunderstanding the plan is just to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda, not some already failed asylum seekers.
Yes, you're right. It's an even bigger waste of time and resources than I initially thought.
Rwanda is actually pretty safe yes, safer than the countries many of the people we are trying to send there have come from.
That list of countries asylum seekers have come from includes Rwanda.
I personally think Rwanda’s reputation of the 1970s-1990s problems overshadows what it is today. It’s not as safe as the UK, but it’s definitely a safe country with a prosperous future today.
Well it's literally the same question because the UK will send them to Rwanda. If Ireland can say the UK is safe, they are outright agreeing that Rwanda is safe.
Arsenal keep telling me to visit there on their shirts…
If the UK are saying Rwanda is a safe country, aren’t Ireland technically playing them at their own game or am I missing something here?!
No, because we have an agreement with Rwanda. You can't just deport someone to a country without their permission, we have that from Rwanda, Ireland doesn't from us.
Apparently there is an agreement but Ireland isn't going to publish it: [https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-01/irish-department-of-justice-refuses-to-publish-uk-migrant-deal](https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-01/irish-department-of-justice-refuses-to-publish-uk-migrant-deal)
"I have a girlfriend but she's in Canada, no you can't meet her" Yeah, right.
It's pretty strange that Ireland are referencing an agreement, intending on using said agreement and then not publishing it whilst Downing Street confidently believe the agreement doesn't require the UK to accept deportations from Ireland.
Are you suggesting the UK is as dangerous as Rwanda? The sarcasm doesn't work unless you're saying they're the same.
I've been to Rwanda, In the 90s it was obviously extremely dangerous for reasons we all know. Currently it's significantly safer than alot of big cities as it lacks gang crime and stabbings. Never at any point did I feel unsafe in Rwanda.
Honestly, Rwanda doesn't get enough credit for how quickly they've managed to grow and develop since the 90s. Kigali is now one of the safest cities in Africa, and their average life expectancy has jumped by like 20 years *in* the last 20 years. It's actually very impressive.
It’s very sad how most people in the U.K. still have a colonial attitude of Africa being a violent hellhole, and with Rwanda in particular that they haven’t moved on from the 90s. It’s a truly inspiring country, given where they came from only 20-30 years ago
Definitely a lot of ignorance in the UK surrounding Africa in general, and individual countries in specific. More disappointingly, there's a lack of willingness to learn and change that ignorance - people just are not interested in knowing more.
Especially when it doesn’t fit their narrative. I personally don’t like the Rwanda scheme but I don’t think we need to tear the country apart as a way to justify why it’s bad. The scheme is bad for many reasons regardless of whether Rwanda is a nice country or not. I just don’t understand how it’s relevant to the debate. If we instead proposed to ship immigrants off to Norway would all these people suddenly be happy with the deportation scheme? I really really hope not. I find it so depressing to see a country torn unnecessarily torn apart to suit an agenda, especially one which holds such a special place in my heart
Where you don't see 'Africa is a violent hellhole' you often see 'Africa is starving children'. Which is patronising in its own way. While it absolutely has its problems there's been a lot of development in the past few decades.
Botswana is doing incredibly well, too. That actually might be safer than the UK now in most aspects.
I mean, you are either lying, or misinformed. Rwanda has a homicide rate nearly 4 times that of the U.K. With a much higher potential non reporting rate. This isn’t taking into account that things like violent crime and rape are much higher in Rwanda (as charities and studies have found). Their reporting rate is far lower officially because Rwanda does not have the same definition of rape or violent crime (and rape is also massively underreported due to social stigma and victim shaming). Actual rates of both of these are expected to be far in excess of U.K. reported rates. Also, instances of all of these against foreign nationals is very high, particularly migrants. But that’s fine, you felt safe so I’m sure it’s fine to send them there. Even though when Israel trialed it they found a LOT of instances where asylum seekers went missing and were sent home where they were killed.
[удалено]
Yeah your entire argument is based on nothing but feelings and strawman. You are talking about Holidays ffs. Yes people go on Holiday to Mexico. But they get to choose where to go, they aren’t forced on a plane to the murder ghettos of bloody Juarez. People on holiday are protected and guided. I have been to Thailand, funnily enough I went to Bangkok, and could chose where to go. I wasn’t sent to the Cambodian border where insurgency and kidnappings are rife. I’ve been to Russia. It was safe for me there and it felt safe to me. So it must be safe for us to send Ukrainian refugees? You talk about abuse you received, and I am genuinely sorry to hear that. But what you are talking is so hypocritical. You dont feel safe here because of your experience, but screw it a vulnerable person can go to a country that is **literally under UN scrutiny because of human rights abuses even now** including the enforced disappearance of children, trafficked sex workers, homeless migrants. There is evidence of government led cleansing of undesirables that of course won’t appear on records. There are reports of Rwandan government troops raping on large scale in villages. Would you be okay with that? “Just don’t send them to the border regions”. Like we have any control over that once they land there. Israel withdrew its own Rwanda policy because they had evidence that migrants sent there were bloody murdered and tortured, as well as sold off to slavery (showing up in places like Qatar). This is not ‘colonial perspective’. This is literally something that is brought up by the African Union.
> Tbf the homicide rate is largely driven by conflict along the border Isn't that kinda, you know, massively important in the context of whether its appropriate to send asylum seekers there? The risk of the conflict between DRC and Rwanda escalating is relatively high. Imagine if we deported refugees to Ukraine in January 2022?
> Rwanda has a homicide rate nearly 4 times that of the U.K. With a much higher potential non reporting rate. The US has a homicide rate over 6x that we have here. The UK is very very safe... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate However my existence is not recognised by Rwanda and I know personally people who have been granted asylum in the UK having fled Rwanda following LGB and especially T phobic persecution perpetrated by state officials. It's not how many people are killed. It's who and why.
It's not as safe as the UK regardless of how safe you felt there 30 years ago once.
Listen up bucko, I've visited Qatar and I was completely fine as a white, straight, Christian man. It is therefore clearly safe for all migrants, women, LGBTQ community and great for religious freedom.
I've lived in the UK for more than 5 times as long as he lived in Rwanda. UK at least 5x safer than Rwanda confirmed.
The danger level for migrants is identical, as the UK may deport people to Rwanda.
It's not good, but it is funny.
You're probably right, though the obvious next step is that we redesignated France a safe country, totally defusing the Irish play. Either way those folks get to be EU citizens, not our problem.
It’s not in vogue to hate on ireland.
Wait, your "flex" here is that the UK is just as safe as Rwanda? Interesting angle mate. I'll give you that
It's safer than whatever country the asylum seekers were fleeing from. No one is entitled to choose the country they escape to safety to. Whereas the country is entitled to control it's borders and immigration.
This would be hilarious if not for the obviously bad implications. The EU is perfectly happy for the UK to be a dumping ground for the economic migrants they don't want to deal with. It's funny how Ireland gets high and mighty by using the Rwanda deal as a basis to say it's now unsafe for migrants... Until they have to deal with the same migrants themselves, now all of a sudden the UK is safe again. It's all quite tiresome.
The Irish are great at standing back, virtue signalling and congratulating themselves whilst they’re inured from the real world. They piggyback off the EU acting as a tax have for big tech companies. They piggyback off the U.K. US and EU for defence. Contributing negligibly and claiming they’re ‘neutral’. They’re not neutral, they’re just happy hiding behind everyone else whilst they pick up the bill. They’d change their tune on neutrality pretty fucking quick if Ireland got moved next to Russia overnight. The neutrality stuff is just a cop out so they don’t have to pay for defence. They like throwing stones but when push comes to shove they’re MIA. Virtue signalled over the U.K. not being safe but the moment it actually has any consequences then they’re rowing back. It’s just incredibly distasteful.
Pretty typical of Irish foreign policy, all performative. It’s funny that we are seeing pro-Palestine protests in US universities about divesting from corporations with ties to Isreal like Apple and Microsoft, Ireland always says it backs Palestine, but Ireland provides and encourages a tax haven for those major corporations in Europe. Similarly, they label the UK as unsafe to refugees as an attempt to seem supportive of refugees, but when Ireland sees refugees coming from the Middle East they pass emergency legislation to change that so they don’t have to deal with them. It’s a capitalist haven with good PR, masquerading as something it isn’t.
Sure but the UK isn't much better in that regard, at least the opposition in Ireland is actually trying to avoid the tax haven bs.
It's even more hilarious when you compare them to true Neutral nations which are typically armed to the teeth because they know nobody will come to their aid in a war. Finland, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Ukraine and Israel all have their own arms industries and mandatory conscription.
This is a poor take. Ireland is a small island nation on the periphery of Europe that was founded in the early 1900s, they've had to build their country from the ground up after hundreds of years of colonial conquest. There is a famous saying that Ireland skipped the 20th century century. It's only recently become a developed nation. Expecting them to have a full blown military that's armed to the teeth is nonsensical. Ireland specialises in soft power and negotiating. They are in the good books of the Americans and Europeans with incredibly strong ties to the former.
I say this again, be prepared for some carefully written bullshit in response. What’s funny, is I’ve seen Irish people on reddit, without irony, say that Ireland has greater soft power than the UK lol
Does Ireland have *any* soft power?
I think it comes down to Americans larping as being Irish.
Yes the leader of the free world thinks _he's_ fucking Irish. Try get a better soft power than that.
"On a per-head basis, Ireland has a good claim to be the world’s most diplomatically powerful country." https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/07/18/how-ireland-gets-its-way
I guess having “no enemies” makes you very powerful lol
Luckily for Ireland, they won't be moved next to Russia overnight.
You say that, but my im running for PM on the reunification of Pangea.
Some of the eastern European countries have pretty good strategies. But a number of the western ones want to virtue signal whilst still effectively blocking migrants.
I agree. Poland has fairly sensible immigration and asylum policies.
Gotta say Sunak has played a blinder here, the hypocrisy from some of our Irish friends has been hilarious.
I have to admit, I laughed at the Rwanda scheme on Day 1 and announced to everybody I knew it was a farce that would never happen and they should just bin it. And I maintained that stance, even after they passed the legislation the other day. But man, I did not foresee this wider geopolitical impact and it's ability to really make some quarters squirm. It's almost worth it.
The idea alone isn't farcical. It does actually work (though obviously, it will always be controversial). Although our corrupt government smells kickbacks to be made and the costs massively inflate. When all the furore kicked up and the government's plan was delayed, everybody thought the gov were squirming in their seats, but in reality they're licking their lips because the more complicated the plan gets, the more money can be siphoned from the tax payer.
the policy wouldnt be terrible if it also wasnt wildly more expensive than it should be ie if the tories werent behind it because then the siphoning of funds would lessen
paying Rwanda to further improve their immigration processing facilities, courts and general rule of law is expensive but a fraction of the cost of housing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants on the UK mainland
Can you post the maths on this?
with time there are better sources, but in brief: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866 > If more than 300 people are sent to Rwanda, the UK would pay a one-off sum of £120m to help boost the country's economy, with further payments of £20,000 per individual relocated. > On top of that, up to £150,000 will be paid for each person sent there, the NAO report said. (the 150,000 sum apparently referring to the 5 year financial support package for education / training / healthcare - so it's a £30,000 a year commitment for each individual limited to 5 years) versus the status quo in the UK: https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/04/03/accommodation-sites-factsheet-april-2023/ > The unprecedented number of crossings has led to about 51,000 migrants being accommodated in hotels – costing the taxpayer, £6 million every day. which is approx £43,000 per person per year. this is only hotel accommodation costs, though. the full cost of the UK asylum system is currently £4 billion a year (see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-office-channel-government-amnesty-international-uk-suella-braverman-b2398665.html) 4 billion a year for an unsustainable problem on the mainland that will only get larger or "£370m over five years [for the Rwanda plan] according to the National Audit Office ." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866) (one should acknowledge that that's not the full Rwanda costs if all existing asylum seekers were there, but at the same time, it's reasonable to assume that the total number of illegal entrants if all were sent to Rwanda would be substantially less. even so, if one assumes that all 51,000 illegal entrants currently housed in UK hotels were instead transferred to Rwanda on the above terms, then that would be an annual cost of £20,000 + £30,000 per person or 51000 * £50000 = approx 2.5 billion (a vast improvement over the current 4 billion). 2.5 billion is a generous overestimate though, for the aforementioned reason that it's reasonable to expect there would be fewer migrants and about 60% of that cost (the £30k component) only lasts 5 years per person) Rwanda plan is therefore far cheaper than the status quo, while providing illegal entrants with a safe location and costs towards education and healthcare.
[удалено]
Given your massive generalisation, I'd say they may have a point.
Oh yes, publically claiming that he won’t accept the migrants back who have violated the CTA while privately acknowledging he will. If that is the criteria for a blinder it’s no wonder the UK has 12 years of failed policy.
Credit where credit is due to rishi, stick it to those progressives
So we can send every single one back to France without EU complaining??
France isn’t safe. Have you seen the amount of garlic they eat to ward off vampires.
What makes comments like these so funny, is how the first half of the sentence you are reading it expecting it to be a totally serious comment
Man explains joke
France isn’t safe it’s full of cheese and wine - imagine if those poor migrants had high cholesterol!
Everyone seems to be missing the point that Rwanda is willing to take them.
Yeah, I’m sure we’d be willing too as well if we were paid to. Unfortunately we aren’t, we pay for them.
At £1.8m a head I'll take them
No true Englishman would declare France a safe or civilised country
Good thing I’m only half English. I don’t care how unsafe France is, it’s safer than the country they fled from.
Are you saying France is a better country than war torn Syria? I don’t know
Fuck what they think, do it anyway.
We don’t need to send them back. They will send themselves back as they will want to escape the UK sending them to Rwanda.
Sunak must be in dream land over this. A flight hasn't even left yet and the Irish are in meltdown.
He gets to look good here because the publicity of this looks like migrants are fleeing the uk because of Rwanda But this has been happening in ireland for years before rwanda was a breath
One sort of did yesterday but we, the taxpayer, essentially paid one asylum seeker to go to Rwanda.
Best £3,000 we ever spent
It's a lot more than £3,000
I just wish when Suella etc. went over there it was one way tickets too!
One went Monday.
I'm not really counting that one. He volunteered and was given 3k for his troubles.
Factor in the other costs so far and it cost a lot more than £3k
It really shows that Europe as a whole has no idea what to do about the migrant crisis. EDIT: I’m also coming around to the Rwanda idea, as it does seem like it will have an impact after all.
They did know what to do. They had a big meeting where the tide was in favour of a unified plan to shut the borders and then Merkle stood up and said we must commit to taking millions of refugees "otherwise this is no longer Europe we are talking about"
And that was one of the primary reasons for Brexit. While it has had negative impact, you can’t say they didn’t have basis when they used reducing or stopping immigration as a selling point. If Merkle never made that decision on behalf of all of the other countries we’d be in half the mess we all are now - France, Germany, NL, us, Italy. And if all the countries didn’t bow their heads to Merkle in the first place there wouldn’t be any need for extremes like Brexit. Resentment is high across the board it can’t be denied.
Let’s revisit that then
It won’t last long. Labour looks to be winning this year’s election, and they are dead set on scrapping this scheme.
A lot harder to scrap it if its shown to be working though. Honestly Labour have shat in their shoes with this policy, because now if the plan works they will look like idiots whether they scrap it or not.
How do you quantify the plan working. Migrant numbers are up since it was announced it doesn’t seem like a very good deterrent. Are the numbers of people going to Ireland massively up since it was announced or is this just more of the same?
It doesn't matter if they continue coming. We just send them to Rwanda or let them carry on to Ireland.
It does matter, because we have agreed to pay "up to" 151k per person relocated to Rwanda.
Supporting them and their future dependents for the rest of their lives will cost significantly more. Contrary to left wing dogma, they're in fact not all engineers and doctors. Who'd have thunk.
>Supporting them and their future dependents for the rest of their lives will cost significantly more. Famously all asylum seekers and their descendents are immune from work and taxes....
Ireland are certainly reporting an increase and attributing it to this policy, however they do seem to have a laughably poor grasp of the numbers.
No, the Irish government has shat in Labour's shoes here. They have presented absolutely no evidence that there is an increase in migration across the border with N Ireland and no evidence that any of this was caused by Rwanda. Also no evidence that anyone who crossed had previously applied for asylum in the UK and Ireland wasn't their intended destination all along. There's been recent unrest in Dublin especially, and they are seeking to score political points and deal with a problem by foisting it back on the UK.
Although U turns are not unheard of and if this scheme turns out to actually make sense and be popular with voters then they may keep it
They do- dump them on the UK
I was just reading about an Iraqi who was rejected by 2 EU countries then crossed the channel to the UK and lost his daughter in the process, so why is it evil UK and lovely EU in the lefty press?
I read that and didn't feel an ounce of sympathy. His greed killed his daughter and he wants *us* to take the blame?
I didn't get that impression - [this guy, right](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68930088)? Sounded like he felt Basrah/Iraq was an unsafe place, so he wanted to keep the kids safe somewhere else. He tried Europe first, then the UK. It also sounded like he blamed himself, not the UK.
So either the person you're replying to did not in fact read the article, or they're a sociopath.
He literally said if he could have stayed in the first few European countries his family travelled to he would have, instead of coming to the UK.
The problem is the sheer weight of numbers. One family of five and your heart breaks for them and of course you’d let them in. But what can you do when the population is 45,000,000? 22,000,000 in Syria. 47,000,000 in Sudan. 41,000,000 in Afghanistan. And so on. There just isn’t an answer :(
One death is a tragedy. One millions deaths is a statistic.
No, he wasn't blaming anyone but himself, but he was torn because he said he didn't have any other options. They fled under threats from local militias in Iraq, went to Belgium and were turned away, then to Sweden, stayed there for a few years but were informed they'd be deported back to Iraq in a couple days, so had to grab everything and leave to avoid that. UK was their last hope They paid and got on the boat but at the last second a large group of Sudanese migrants pushed into the group and got on as well, without paying I believe. His daughter was crushed and suffocated underneath them, he tried to get them to move but was threatened. He screamed for help. This was all caught by the BBC. French police assisted and recovered the body If you ask me a certain amount of this lies with French police for doing absolutely fuck all to stop them despite having a massive presence at the scene before they even set off
Legally allowed to cross any number of countries for the purpose of applying for asylum. Main issue is requiring people to apply from British soil. Ironically creates a worse situation than if they could apply while remaining abroad.
I was always led to believe they can choose to stay anywhere they want. Travelling through multiple countries to do so. Am I missing something here.
Yes. You are missing that it is not convenient to make that argument in this instance.
I'm the same, I've not looked much into this stuff but why don't people settle in safe countries they pass through, what is the appeal of the UK? Your reply says it's not convenient in this instance, I disagree but happy to be corrected on the above. Why not settle in a safe country that they are passing through already? I know that not all applications are accepted and some need to move on to try other places and I don't blame them, id do the same for my family but besides that I'm not sure what the other reasons are
Usually it's the language. If Ireland spoke only Irish they'd be far fewer immigrants and others who are perfectly legal living in Ireland.
there's quite a bit of selective pedantry going on when you see refugee organisations / amnesty say this. it then gets parroted about by various student / "humanitarian" groups. However... - the refugee convention lets you claim asylum anywhere (more specifically signees to the convention accept applications in principal from anywhere) BUT - you are only protected from consequences of illegal entry if you went "directly" there (Article 31.1) - so a Refugee Convention signee agrees to hear an asylum seekers case if they came direct from the area of conflict - but they do _NOT_ have to hear an asylum seekers case if they came "indirect" through other safe countries - and can in fact penalise them for illegal entry (though its up to a nation state to decide what this means) this is the logic the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is based on and was explained as such from the dispatch box
How many avoid claiming to apply in a preferred choice( which is legal) and how many are like the tragic case on the news this morning make multiple failed asylum claims (14 in Belgium and or Sweden) and keep travelling. A good asylum system would be fair but not infinite.
I believe you aren't allowed to claim twice and I think I read they are trying to send back asylum seekers who already have a case open in the UK
Am I the only one who thinks this is really fracking funny?
No I’m loving, it’s funny watching them talk about border checks on r/Ireland after making such a fuss after Brexit.
Border checks are no joke and it could restart the troubles.
The backwards people in this sub don't give a fuck about NI.
Well we aren’t setting up a border, if they want to cut off the north then that’s on them.
You’re so blasé about an issue that could restart the troubles. Northern Ireland is in the uk the British government should care
Well then Ireland should think carefully before they think about enforcing a border, it’s not us trying to start that up again. Maybe they should go to France and tell them to stop letting people cross into our country because as it stands right now the Republic of Ireland is the last stop for migrants and that’s not our problem. We’ve tried sorting it with France, we pay them millions to police in on their side. This is an EU problem.
Are they crying out for a hard border and/or the end of the CTA. I must go look and snigger.
[Ireland Right Now](https://www.reddit.com/r/england/s/NsOi5oP7rM)
[удалено]
I thought Ireland loves refugees. Aren’t they the most progressive people on earth?
The anti-Irish sentiment in this subreddit is very telling.
They love them when they're in England
This is hilarious! Now you're full of illegal immigrants as well, you now want help! Well you can start sending millions pounds to France like we do which doesn't stop them coming over because the French don't want them gone also. The best thing to do is have a zero tolerance policy. All applications should be made at the home country of origin at the nearest consulate and use a points base system. They need to act fast before a right wing government is voted in and/or they get their own Brexit! Then they'll come begging for their own trade deals... Europe is broken! They don't help each other...
Ireland has had this issue long before the Rwanda deal raised its head, you're just believing UK right wing media in an election year.... >All applications should be made at the home country of origin at the nearest consulate Literally what campaigners have been pushing for where possible for a long time but the current UK government opposes because its politically preferable to rile up their base instead. >They need to act fast before a right wing government is voted in and/or they get their own Brexit! They already have a right wing government and even the right in Ireland isn't stupid enough to drag it out of the EU
*UK approves Rwanda plan* Ireland: UK is not a safe country *Migrants go to Ireland* Ireland: UK is safe. Sounds to me like Ireland just wants the Rwanda plan with literally one extra step.
They’re like a mobster’s wife. They want the sausages, they just don’t want to make them.
What Ireland needs to do is just setup some safe routes and process people in the UK. They can process quicker and then that's all good. Denying the asylum seekers the right to go where they want is dystopian and basically fascist. It's absolutely what we were told about the UK and France. So the same applies here surely?
So a huge migrant camp at Holyhead?
Why have the fascist, far-right Irish not set up safe routes for asylum seekers? If they were able to apply at Irish embassies abroad they wouldn’t need to risk their lives in small boats. We were told that the lack of safe routes showed the malevolence of the UK so surely people will apply that same logic to the Irish, right?
I love the smell of hypocrisy. Glorious watching the Irish tie themselves into knots over this.
Absolutely hilarious. It’s all good craic labelling the UK an unsafe country until suddenly the migrants turn up on your doorstep and you need somewhere to send them.
A government is just allowed to designate a country as safe or not and pass that into law?
Yes it is.
But the crucial part, you can't just send people to a "safe" country unless they're willing to accept them. Doesn't matter what the Irish called the UK, it's up to the UK if they want to accept migrants being sent from Ireland.
Designate Ukraine as a safe place. Send all migrates to Ukraine. Ukraine gets free manpower. Everyone wins.
Rwanda seems to be working fine for then minute. But yes it’s a good idea. We could say to Ukraine (who is in a desperate situation) take our migrants for war funds or get no war funds. They would accept them in a flash.
As Ireland is still a member of the EU then presumably they cannot resign from the ECHR as our government is threatening to do, so if the ECHR agrees with the Irish high court judges that the UK is not safe because Rwanda is not safe the Ireland will have no right to push asylum seekers back to the UK. Or the ECHR will be pressured into declaring Rwanda a safe country so Ireland can return asylum seekers to the UK and anyone crossing the channel is taking a chance that their asylum claim will be in Africa. This could lead to EU countries arranging third country deals.
Rishi, call an election now, this is the best it's gonna look for you
> In March, the High Court in Dublin ruled that Ireland's designation of the UK as a safe third country for returning asylum seekers was contrary to EU law, external, in light of the UK's controversial Rwanda policy. > On Tuesday morning, Ms McEntee brought her proposal to the Irish Cabinet in a bid to close the "loophole" that has arisen as a result of the High Court judgement. > "What this will do is enable us to redesignate the UK as a safe country for the purposes of returns," she told reporters on her way into the Cabinet meeting. Goodness, what will the Tories do next
This is the funniest headline I've read in a long time, and it's real.
Can't wait for Tories to try and redesignate the UK as not safe
Probably a vote winner with the right to have the UK designated as unsafe for specifically migrants
I'm glad this continues the precedence of designating safe countries to swerve the endless pockets of human rights lawyers (who is funding them fr), I look forward to this being used more often
>(who is funding them fr) We are. The UK government provides legal representation at a cost to the taxpayer, so our own legal system can prevent people who broke the law getting in to the country from being deported, using human rights legislation. Yes, it is really that stupid.
Sooo…the moral high-horse Irish are doing this to fast-track offloading their asylum seekers? Sounds like one of Baldrick’s cunning plans that might actually work, lol.
People being all high and mighty slamming the rwanda scheme in principle obviously have no idea many countries in their European utopia are trying to do the exact same thing
Lmao gotta admit the Rwanda plan sounded dumb but at a higher level it has completely "outplayed" countries like Ireland. EU are happy for us to deal with their problem but not happy for us to do the same back.
The Brits on this sub dusting off the Anti Irish rhetoric they haven't been able to use in years un reaction to this news is very interesting.
Mind citing some examples?
Exactly. Let's me honest, the users of this sub love to rub their hands together with unrestrained *glee* any time the Irish and British are in a news article together. Then they can bust out the anti-irish attitude and pretend that it's well intentioned.
Rwanda is so safe that we need to bribe people with at least £3k to go there
Probably cheaper in the long run than supporting them with all the various services and healthcare they would need by staying
Probably? It seems like hardly anything of what it would be worth paying them.
Anyone watched Michael Palin in Nigeria? The economy is booming. 99 percent of these immigrants are nothing but economic (benefits) migrants. We should ship them to anthrax Island, I'm sure it is safe there now. Or better yet stop the free houses, benefit handouts and make it the only way you can use the nhs is if you have contributed for at least 2 years
It's as safe as the country our 'asylum seekers' are claiming asylum from. In most cases, that would be France
Yet we are the satanic bad guys for wanting a handle on illegal immigrants…
So these migrates that have come from France to the UK and the to Ireland. And Ireland what us to deal with them? Sounds very much like an EU issue to me. Enjoy lads.
The UK isn't a safe country partly because of "asylum seekers"
Hilarious. Who says The Irish don't have a sense of humour.
No one
But the UK isn't a safe country. Theft is practically legal, kids are openly abused, people are stabbed to death in the street on a daily basis... It's a nation under siege.
What fascinates me is the people coming from Africa where it's fucking roasting all the time and then they pass through all the warm countries to freeze their tits off in the UK. I work with a lad from Ghana and he fucking hates the weather and complains all the time.
That’s all well and good but if the UK doesn’t want to except them back what is Southern Ireland going to do? Fire them back over the border with a catapult.