Our Home Secretary has just instituted an illegal policy of deporting African and Asian refugees to Rwanda.
Irrespective of the colour of her skin, her actions are those of the far right.
Irrespective of the colour of her skin, her actions are those of the far right.
You are throwing around "far right" as a slur in this discussion and that doesn't address facts or the truth of the matter.
I’ve already explained why it’s far right policy but let me explain in simpler words:
Only black and brown people are sent to Rwanda under this scheme. White Ukrainians are not. That’s why it’s a far right scheme. One might even call it racist.
Calling it “nativism” would be inappropriate because that would make it seem like a thing that needs a label. To the contrary, that’s just how most societies are. What we need a label for are the small minority of folks who feel the opposite way.
It can be both simultaneously.
> the desire of Indians to have their country without other people in it
It's a bit more than that though. I don't think you know enough, sorry.
At the end of the day, Bangladesh exists because Bangladeshis wanted a country for Bangali Muslims. Most Bangladeshis subscribe to that core premise. So it’s bizarre to me when people attack Britons upset about immigration from Bangladesh using accusations of “racism.” The Brexiter and the average Bangladeshi are ideologically on the same ground. Their differences arise due to conflicting interests, not conflicting ideologies.
Except you forgot to include the part where Greater Pakistan military overturned the democratically elected Bengali prime minister, so that Bhutto could hold onto power as Bengalis are unfit to lead. You also forgot to mention that Pakistani military killed a million plus Bangladeshis.
Please point out where the EU sent in an army to kill a million Brits.
You make so many bad faith arguments, its really nauseating to sit around correcting all of your Gish Gallops.
Waiting to hear from you how the independence of African nations and the overturning of Apartheid was an act of racism/ethnocentrism by black people against white people.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31348078
Rayiner is an ex Muslim, currently Christian, brown Bangladeshi immigrant to USA who wants the brown people to leave the United States - so that white people can have a white United states - just like "Indians/Bangladeshis want a country for themselves" a need that Rayiner made up on behalf of the citizens of India and Bangladesh.
Significantly, Rayiner excludes himself from the list of brown people who need to leave USA. I have heard of Jewish Nazis and watched the Clayton Bigsby comedy sketch- but it is surreal to interact with someone like this online.
Instead of white, he uses the word "culture" which is the hip dog whistle in urban circles.
In fact, it is easy to distinguish political far right from political far left. Both wants to remove/weaken the institutions. One will push for more personal power(aka: strengthen executive, weaken judicial and legislative power (you can add push media concentration). The other will push towards revocative referendums, random selection for public committee, and overall a weakening of the executive power (refund/divide the police and stuff). As long as with stay within economic center (basically modern capitalism shades).
If you don't think moving toward a less republican government is enough, we can go historically: a marker of far right is treating/talking about the country like a living organism.
I'm talking myself into believing that India is already far right, i should stop arguing :/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/10/uk-deportati...
This will be challenged at the court of appeal and will, eventually, be found a breach of international law.
So yes, the policy is unlawful _in fact_ but the legal process needs to catch up to that.
So it is not illegal.
This doesn’t mean they’re legal, it means the courts won’t stop those individuals from being deported while the legal case for the policy is being argued. The decision to grant, or not, an injunction is not in itself a judgement on the underlying policy. The court did the former, not the latter.
The English courts haven’t done this yet, they just said they won’t issue injunctions to prevent certain deportations.
This does seem logically consistent to me, just trying to understand your position better.
Whether I think it’s legal is based on what the policy is, whether it was passed into law by Parliament (in this case, there’s no Act of Parliament), what legal experts have said, whether it’s been tested by the courts.
You know, how most sensible people make decisions: they look at the information available and make a decision based on that.
- it might still violate the Human Rights Act
- it’s still a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe for refugees
Just reading one Act isn’t enough because real life is complicated.
It being a matter for debate whether Rwanda is safe is, I think, not something the SC is going to rule on.
It violating the Human Rights Act seems to be the only real issue for the SC then? Again, I just wonder whether this policy is likely to be illegal under that Act given that the relevant clause says "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. I just doubt that deportation would fall under torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment _in the spirit of this Act_. I agree that this policy is immoral but kind of doubt that the SC is going to find it tantamount to torture. But maybe there are other arguments here that I'm unaware of?
I guess my legal basis is precedent.
Forgive me if I find your entire premise suspicious and decline the opportunity to debate further.
Rwanda in particular is an odd choice if you are genuinely concerned about the well-being of people who are fleeing persecution, given the UK government travel advice for its own citizens.
It is also a very expensive choice (about the cost of giving them free food and accommodation in an average bit of Hull for over 2 years); but even in its own terms, it does not appear to have changed, nor is it likely in the future to change, the minds of the extremely small number of asylum seekers who have not been put off the UK by virtue of it being a damp sheep-filled rock in the North Atlantic where they will be banned by law from seeking employment.
What percentage of asylum seekers in the UK were eligible for asylum?
Even using “granted” as a proxy for “eligible”, hard to tell as every source I found contradicts all the others, somewhere between 25 and 75 percent.
However, this isn’t the right question, for two reasons.
First: The number you want to compare against is the people whose minds were changed by the latest policy. Given how few people were seeking asylum in the UK even before this, the maximum is already low.
Second: this policy does not improve the expected accuracy of government judgement regarding the legitimacy of any given claim.
E.g. my country had thousands of „refugees“ hoping over border from Belarus last year. Last time I saw statistics, not even 1% was eligible for „refugee“ status. Even skipping the part that, according to international law, refugee is legit for the first safe country.
You can’t because they don’t exist. There is no obligation to seek asylum in the “first safe country.” This is a common trope trotted out by right-wing mouthpieces which is where I’m assuming you got the rest of your “facts.”
For EU, there's Dublin agreement.
Your first sentence is irrelevant because this applies to refugees claiming asylum.