UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?

[Senethro]

That is why failure of Rwanda Scheme is a disappointment. Maybe the EU could lease few of those ghost town Chinese real estate boom reportedly left behind for similar purposes.

Rwanda was very obviously never going to work. It was repeatedly delayed to avoid from visibly failing.

It would have been a humanitarian disaster, questionably legal, and pretty much just happened to the extent that it did because they were receiving money.

What exactly were you hoping for?

 

[Kyriakos]

How about countries taking in their quota instead of dreaming of China ever becoming a people-dump for Europe.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

For what it's worth, here is the percentage of ethnically Irish people by county in Ireland from 1971-2022. The foreign-origin percentage of the population quadrupled in two decades, it's perfectly understandable that we want immigration vastly reduced if not stopped altogether.

Just casually quoting a pic from a racist, anti muslim account, that propagates the lie of "no go areas" very normal stuff and definitely not indicative of any underlying bigotry

 

[Yeekim]

You are proposing sending those claiming asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention to China?

I am unsure whether it could be reconciled with the rights that refugees are granted under said Convention, but it might be possible. Curious to hear your thoughts about it.

However, I think such option would be required primarily for those potential arrivals who do not qualify for refugee status but can not be returned anywhere else either, or for those who violate their obligations under the Convention - e.g. by committing violent crime.

I'll also quote one of my previous posts.

- that existing framework of international treaties, while being A Good Thing in general (we should NOT be returning to the world described in Remarque's Flotsam and Arc de Triomphe, with stateless and/or refugees being ping-ponged across state borders with no way out) are quite easily exploited by criminals, which breeds additional resentment.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The twitter account that posted that is full of "ethnic minorities live in social housing, this is white genocide/ethnic cleansing of the white man" bull**** disgusting stuff that would never be tolerated in this forum if posted directly

 

[Yeekim]

Rwanda was very obviously never going to work. It was repeatedly delayed to avoid from visibly failing.

It would have been a humanitarian disaster, questionably legal, and pretty much just happened to the extent that it did because they were receiving money.

What exactly were you hoping for?

I only learned about it once it was announced to be closed.
I don't know the details, but I think the underlying principle is correct - see my previous answer to Samson.

 

[Samson]

I am unsure whether it could be reconciled with the rights that refugees are granted under said Convention, but it might be possible. Curious to hear your thoughts about it.

However, I think such option would be required primarily for those potential arrivals who do not qualify for refugee status but can not be returned anywhere else either, or for those who violate their obligations under the Convention - e.g. by committing violent crime.

I think sending them to China would breach the non-refoulement rule because I think China has a history of threatening peoples life or freedom on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle of international law anchored in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that forbids a country from deporting ("refoulement") any person to any country in which their "life or freedom would be threatened" on account of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".

For people who do not claim asylum that is a different question, I think they are uncontroversialy deported to the country that they came from, and that happens every day.

 

[Yeekim]

I think sending them to China would breach the non-refoulement rule because I think China has a history of threatening peoples life or freedom on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

I think there would be a breach only if a particular refugee was a member of a particular group they've been persecuting?

E.g. Christian Rwandans might be fine?

Even so... at least in theory such issue could be solveable by negotiating and securing appropriate legal safeguards/guarantees. Far-fetched, I know...but not impossible.

For people who do not claim asylum that is a different question, I think they are uncontroversialy deported to the country that they came from, and that happens every day.

I think so as well - but it is not always possible - e.g when people turn up on a boat with no documents.

 

[Samson]

I think there would be a breach only if a particular refugee was a member of a particular group they've been persecuting?

E.g. Christian Rwandans might be fine?

Even so... at least in theory such issue could be solveable by negotiating and securing appropriate legal safeguards/guarantees. Far-fetched, I know...but not impossible.

I think the rules are quite strict, and that would not pass muster. We entered such agreements with Rwanda (as Rwanda did with the EU) and they turned out to not be worth much.

I think so as well - but it is not always possible - e.g when people turn up on a boat with no documents.

I think in reality everyone in such a situation would claim asylum, bicbw.

 

[Senethro]

I feel like we're skipping some steps here. Yeekim presented some statistics without explicitly saying what the problem was, or its cause. Then suddenly deportation is the solution?

If you're not careful, then suddenly any non-net-contributor is a candidate for deportation. Is this concept of societal contribution of primary importance here?

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, we're skipping a whole bunch of steps, it seems.

 

[Yeekim]

I feel like we're skipping some steps here. Yeekim presented some statistics without explicitly saying what the problem was, or its cause. Then suddenly deportation is the solution?

If you're not careful, then suddenly any non-net-contributor is a candidate for deportation. Is this concept of societal contribution of primary importance here?

We should be careful, of course.
Solidarity, generosity and compassion are Good Things.

Just few things:
- resources being limited, the degree of our moral obligations is imo different, depending on whether the non-contributing party is a already a member of society, by virtue of being a citizen, or only aspiring to join said society.
- this notwithstanding, every human has basic rights that should be respected. However, it breeds resentment when people get perception they've been taken advantage of but have no suitable recourse - e.g. when somebody who has been granted an asylum becomes a violent criminal.

Also, while the topic has drifted towards refugees and societal (non)contribution, that is only one angle of fears/concerns people have. Even immigration that is economically beneficial can ultimately turn existing majority groups into minority groups, if it fast and large-scale enough that the newcomers don't have time and/or incentives to become properly integrated.

 

[Gorbles]

Even immigration that is economically beneficial can ultimately turn existing majority groups into minority groups, if it fast and large-scale enough that the newcomers don't have time and/or incentives to become properly integrated.

You keep raising hypothetical "concerns" that have substantial overlap with far-right fearmongering. This is why I kept asking for concrete, actual examples. You don't seem like the type to concern yourself with slippery-slope arguments usually - so why here?

 

[Yeekim]

You keep raising hypothetical "concerns" that have substantial overlap with far-right fearmongering. This is why I kept asking for concrete, actual examples. You don't seem like the type to concern yourself with slippery-slope arguments usually - so why here?

According to Office of National Statistics, according to 2021 census, people born outside of UK are already a majority in several LADs around London, not even mentioning second generation immigrants. https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/...birth/country-of-birth-3a/born-outside-the-uk

 

[Gorbles]

According to Office of National Statistics, according to 2021 census, people born outside of UK are already a majority in several LADs around London, not even mentioning second generation immigrants. https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/...birth/country-of-birth-3a/born-outside-the-uk

Yes, and? Does this differentiate for people here working on business, or is it a flat rate that you're interpreting to mean first-generation immigrations?

Is there any evidence that this is producing a negative outcome? Is there any evidence that ties this to "integration"?

 

[Yeekim]

Yes, and? Does this differentiate for people here working on business, or is it a flat rate that you're interpreting to mean first-generation immigrations?

I don't know.

Is there any evidence that this is producing a negative outcome? Is there any evidence that ties this to "integration"?

Noticeable share of your countrymen are disturbed enough that they are currently engaged in rioting. That's pretty negative outcome in itself, no?

 

[Gorbles]

Noticeable share of your countrymen are disturbed enough that they are currently engaged in rioting. That's pretty negative outcome in itself, no?

I could be disturbed enough that the sun isn't purple, and use that to start rioting. Would you consider that a legitimate reason to riot? Is there any legitimate reason to riot? You previously condemned them, and I believe your condemnation . . . the question is, why does that mean the negative outcome is correlated? Surely it's any old excuse?

 

[aelf]

I could be disturbed enough that the sun isn't purple, and use that to start rioting. Would you consider that a legitimate reason to riot? Is there any legitimate reason to riot? You previously condemned them, and I believe your condemnation . . . the question is, why does that mean the negative outcome is correlated? Surely it's any old excuse?

As always, right wingers like to say "Look what you made do" to illustrate that their opponents are the problem

 

[danjuno]

The Right loves calling others "professional victims" then turning around and insisting they are the aggrieved party. Every accusation is a confession.

 

[Nick723]

On immigration, I think that the moral and economic cases often get mixed up.

From my memory of some reports on this (citations unavailable sadly), economic migrants are net contributors to an economy (tend to be well educated, of working age) whilst refugees / asylum seekers are not. There is not an economic case for taking refugees, but there certainly is a moral one.

On integration, Britain does amazingly well. It’s not perfect but immigrants mix with local populations and take on British ideals / values, more so than in other countries (eg France).